From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Sat Nov 30 18:30:50 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:30:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: <0b2401cee944$d3877180$7a965480$@gmail.com> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <0b2401cee944$d3877180$7a965480$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <86599A99-2EA4-4A0A-8DFF-2FF28D290BD6@gmail.com> Mike, and all, Thanks, Mike, for your patience in obtaining a reply. Real life sometimes interferes with what one would prefer to do. I welcome the opportunity to respond, in part because it really forces e tho think how I feel about the points raised. It's quite easy for any of us to become used to living in environments of like-minded people, akin to an echo chamber that amplifies what we think instead of challenging. The interaction of the political parties in the U.S, parliament is a very visible, and destructive, example of that. Unfortunately there is good evidence that the Internet itself encourages such echo chambers to form and to encapsulate people. I've thought about "Snowden" in my own personal context, and can't come down strongly on either side of the argument. It's clear that there are "big data" specialists working for intelligence agencies who have the feeling that if something can be done to increase the density of intelligence information available, they should do it. Their motivations may be good in the sense of enhancing security, but their disregard of law, societal mores, and even sometimes common sense is evident. It's also clear that the methods of judicial oversight of the NSA, the FISA and parts of our Congress, have failed rather badly. I hope that this can be fixed, but I admit that I'm not sure what exactly I mean by 'fixed.' It's also clear that there are people in the world who would like to kill me and my countrymen (and possibly you and yours also), simply because we have different beliefs, if they could get away with it. Given the turmoil, largely based upon religious differences, there is a lot of hate that translates into daily violence in many places in the world. This is a fact. Now the question needs to be asked: how much intelligence is needed in order to keep people safe? The question is compounded by the fact that most intelligence operations must be deeply secret in order to be effective, so that unless one is part of a privileged few, one cannot possibly hope to address the question. That causes me some anxiety, as well as re-examining the level of trust that I place in the actors involved. I don't have quite the level of moral outrage as some regarding NSA's intelligence mandate; my concern is with both the extent of their activities, as well as their skirting or breaking the laws under which they operate. I take it as a given that all moderately developed countries have intelligence operations, and that all of them use the Internet to some extent, perhaps some to a large extent, to gather their information and perform other functions. Some of the events uncovered by Snowden relating to spying on non-hostile countries have led to discoveries that those countries were themselves spying on each other. So there is some phony outrage involved in the ensuing charges. I wish that the world were different, and that we could all rust each other, but that is not the world that we live in. One of my colleagues who works with multiple governments tells me that the Snowden affair has divided governments into two groups: (1) those that have NSA-like capabilities, although they may utilize them differently; and (2) those that don't have such capabilities, and are envious of NSA and want to acquire them. I believe that statement is largely correct, and it highlights that governments themselves are heterogeneous organizations. For example, the U.S. State Department funds projects in countries that provide TOR and useful encryption tools so that civil society activists in those countries can be more effective, while the NSA tries to decode TOR traffic. I suspect that many other countries have the same mixed objectives. This is the world in which we live, whether we like it or not. Thinking about "Snowden" in an Internet governance context leads me to other lines of thought, and your comments are relevant. It's probably more understandable if I insert my remarks at the relevant places in your text below On Nov 24, 2013, at 1:41 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Thanks George for a very sober, serious, insightful and dare I say generous piece. And there is little there that I disagree with including your overall aspirations for and comments on civil society. > > There are however, two issue themes that aren`t included in your discussion which come from two separate pieces of my own personal ecology in these matters that I feel have to be addressed if we are to get to the space that you are urging us toward. > > The first is that you don`t mention Snowden or what we have learned (or perhaps for some, found to be confirmed) through his actions. What we have seen in the starkest of terms in the Snowden documents is how important `control` over the Internet is seen in some quarters, and to what lengths those quarters and presumably others will go to ensure their `dominance` in matters having to do with how the Internet is deployed and used. I think that some may see in this wording an implied connection between ICANN's relationship with the U.S. government and NSA's ability to use the Internet for its extreme surveillance activities. I hope not, because the implication is false. The control that the US government has over ICANN is the result of a completely independent history, and does not confer any advantage to NSA. With sufficient resources, any other government's intelligence service could do the same thing as NSA does -- although I hope that doesn't happen. I can understand that the correlation between NSA/US and ICANN/US can arouse suspicion in people's minds, but those who take the time to understand the facts will allay the suspicion. > Your technical community colleagues have characterized this as an ``attack`` on the Internet. From my perspective I see it as a full-on attempt to subvert the Internet in support of certain interests—and at this point it is unclear whether those interests are national security, national strategic, economic, political or some seamless integration of all of these. My technical colleagues are quite unhappy, as am I. For me, the worst part of what has happened, if true, is the covert seeding of weaknesses into encryption and similar software designed to enhance privacy and protect confidentiality of communication. I don't see any specific proof of such accusations yet, but I am sure that this is going to be thoroughly examined by technical people who are independent of the US government. If such seeding is confirmed, there will be people and agencies in the technical community who will never be trusted again. You'll note that the IETF is starting a concerted effort to build new tools that are, by community inspection, much more likely to be free of such intrusions. I welcome this effort, and I would like to think think that civil society actors would welcome it also. > Among the most damaging outcomes from Snowden is a general breakdown in trust (or confirmation of the reasons for an on-going lack of trust) concerning I would say, all matters having to do with the core elements of the Internet of which certainly, Internet governance is one. Again your technical community colleagues well recognize this development (as of course does the Business Community) and the extremely corrosive and destructive elements that this lack of trust has introduced into what had previously been on-going collaborative relationships of all sorts with respect to Internet related activities. This lack of trust is certainly no less in Civil Society (and dare I say no less warranted) than for the other stakeholder groups and given the lack of normative coherence and even of a shared self- definition that we witness in Civil Society discussions on a daily basis it is perhaps even more explicable for CS, even if no less damaging. I agree that the loss of trust, very important in being able to work together, is a major casualty from Snowden's disclosures and the reactions in the U.S. Congress. One of the things that I have heard over and over as a consequence of this affair is that we have to re-examne the balance between privacy and security. I agree with the sentiment, but I think that the rebalancing is not something that can be discussed as if it were an intellectual exercise. That side of governments concerned with security, and possibly espionage also, has probably learned a different lesson from this affair: don't get caught! They are likely to continue their undercover activities, perhaps in a more limited fashion, but they will continue. The balance in this case comes from the Snowden revelations that empowers many people to push back agains such excesses. That is, the balance will never be established as a static balance, but depends upon both an intelligent intelligence agency and an active citizenry to maintain it in a position that both can accept. > > > I don`t know what to do about this. Perhaps given the lack of resources for facilitating the kinds of (generally face to face and purpose driven) encounters in neutral disinterested spaces that are usually involved in `trust building` perhaps nothing can be done, but I do know that not facing the issue of trust directly and recognizing it in its full (and very ugly) reality means I think that it is more or less impossible to go forward in the ways that you are not unreasonably suggesting. I understand, but think that we need to understand exactly what bonds of trust have been weakened, between whom, and by which actions. I worry that there is a tendency to associate actions taken by or in the US to impute blame on all actions and actors associated with the US. I understand that it is a convenient thing to do, and it's a correct thing to do with respect to some actors and some events, but not all. At the same time, I can understand that understanding the logic of a situation may not be sufficient to overcoming the emotion associated with the judgment. > > The second issue that I would want to add to your commentary is a different one and comes from quite a different background. Many here began this particular odyssey in relation one way or another to WSIS. And certainly for me working in the grassroots use and among grassroots users of ICTs, WSIS was the doorway into these broader Internet Governance concerns. > > Notably, many in CS see WSIS as a significant success and one whose gains they currently appear reluctant to put in jeopardy by re-opening those discussions. I see it rather differently in that for me WSIS was largely a continuation of the pattern of top-down processes (the DotForce, the ICT4D Task Force etc.etc.) trying to solve ICT for Development issues without giving those most directly involved a chance to participate and provide their own insight into these matters. This is interesting, and I think that we have discussed this before. I myself have never seen any significant positive output from the Dot Force, which was clearly a top down effort to stimulate the use of ICT for development. That was the era of the dot-com bubble, and there was a wave of optimism at certain levels that we had identified a panacea. Of course, it was far from it. I was on the Markle Foundation -UNDP advisory group, and I saw first hand how their attempt to address the ICT4D question stumbled badly due to lack of knowledge and experience, and the inability of the sectors to understand each other. UNDP was, at least, in transition to take more input from the countries in which they worked, which helped them to be reasonably effective. And later, we were both associated with GAID, a sorry initiative that served as the retirement program for certain UN officials, and never really produced anything of value. At the same time it occupied official center stage at the top, and thereby pre-empted any other effort from being recognized as a possible improvement to offer leadership in the ICT4D sphere. > Few (if any) of the organizations (including it must be said the CS organizations) most directly involved with WSIS were in fact, in a position to give voice to the concerns of the grassroots users or activists/practitioners and unfortunately the train of failed ICT4D policies and programs (and more recently the quite evident donor fatigue with these failed programs) is a direct result. I think that in the area of ICT4D, the road to hell is surely paved, multiple times, with good donor intentions. The path to development appears to be deceptively easy at the top, where the real on the ground issues are not clearly observed. We have discussed this, and as you know, many donor efforts produced but a prototype of some intervention, and then have declared their work a success even though it may not have been sustainable or even capable of replication. The ICT4D field was littered with 'successful' pilot projects that went nowhere, and a lot of this was due to the top down incentive structure of those who had money to fund them. > > I believe even my first intervention into the IG discussion space articulated much of the above and very very regrettably I see little if any, progress having been made in the activities and interventions which have followed. Rather I see the matters which would be of greatest interest to grassroots users and communities perhaps characterized best through the term ``Internet Justice*`` derided, marginalized and ignored; even dare I say, to the extent that a number of CS groups appear to be opposing a revisiting of WSIS specifically because issues relating to Internet Justice might be introduced including by the G77. I'm not sure if we have a difference of opinion here or not, and I guess that depends in part upon how you would define the term 'Internet justice.' >From the point of ICT4D, I see as import the ability to access a reliable, safe, secure, and affordable Internet to accomplish their aims. Certainly some of that has to do with Internet governance, but I'd argue that the substantial majority of what it takes to produce that environment is a function of national or local policy, not global issues or actors. When I ran with GIPI, we worked in multiple countries to bring sectors together to understand and work fora regime of legislation and regulation that would empower use of the Internet by local actors, whether they were from business, academia, or civil society, at least as much as some governments were willing to allow. Perhaps our projects were in some sense the forerunners of the national IGFs. I regard these new IGFs at the local level as more important that the global meetings because they can concentrate upon specific local issues, and the people and organizations that can contribute directly to solutions are there. I am suggesting that if our focus is on ICT4D, and by 'D' I include both economic and social development encompassing at least some of civil society's concerns, then what happens at the global level may be less important than what happens at the local level. It is at the local level that the issues are most meaningful to people and where the greatest gains may be capable of being achieved. I don't write off the relevance of global governance issues, but they fall into a somewhat different category. > > I think it would be very desirable for CS broadly to move in the directions indicated in George`s piece below but only if done in full recognition, awareness and responsiveness to the issues that I have just attempted to articulate. Mike, I've responded as best I could. If we do still have points of disagreement, I'd like to understand them. Regards, George > > Best, > > Mike > > *Notably the term ``Internet Justice`` follows on from our Environmental CS colleagues who are now characterizing much of their concerns under the rubric of ``Environmental Justice``. > > > > > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 8:59 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Peter Ian; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Subject: Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment > > All, > > Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated. > > I'm suggesting that we should modify both the words and concept of Sala's suggestions and my response. > > Let's not think of doing anything formal; I think that both ends would balk at that, and for good reason. Instead, I'll just be somewhat more active on this list, and if anything comes up with respect to the technical community that I can clarify or help with on an informal and personal basis, I'll try to do that. > > So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if any of them resonate with any of you. > > First, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns. As I recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits. > > The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize. Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined. Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered. > > Second, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood. At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels. In order to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating about them. That function may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long term, or both. > > In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it is extremely important. > > Third, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating groups of ideas. A couple of examples illustrate the point. To the extent that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage their participation. Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on inter-stakeholder group separation. > > Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. > > An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. > > Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, > > I conclude that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects of that approach. > > This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I realize that what I have written, and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas that I think may be useful. The more nuanced discussion can and will come later. > > Your comments are welcome. > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > On Nov 23, 2013, at 1:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > Thanks George and it is a potentially interesting proposition. > > But I must say that I’m unclear as to precisely what role is being suggested here. If the role is to attempt to frame the diversity of voices being articulated in civil society (in my case including those of the community informatics community for example) in a manner in which it can be more readily understood/assimilated/responded to by the technical community I think that is very useful. > > If it is, on the other hand, to act as a more or less “authoritative”/designated “filter” of communications/voices from Civil Society to the Technical Community then I can see quite considerable difficulty and controversy resulting, if nothing else, from a concern within certain CS elements of being “silenced/ignored”. > > (The same clarification would need to be made if the role is perceived as being more of an “honest broker”—i.e. the question being, particularly on the CS side, how inclusive of all CS interests/voices is the “brokerage” committed/able to be. > > Perhaps some clarification is in order here either from yourself in how you perceive the role, or from Ian or Sala on how they presented the role (and perceive it from a CS perspective). > > (I should also possibly add here that a significant number of those active in the Community Informatics community would, by their background, qualifications, experience and current activities qualify as being “techies” of one sort or another. Whether they would qualify as being members of the “Technical Community” (TC) under what I understand to be the criteria for inclusion within the TC as currently defined by the formal TC structures I’m not sure, as their orientation tends to be towards technical design and fabrication in support of social/digital inclusion and social justice.) > > Best to all, > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky > Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:04 AM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons > > Hi, Ian, > > Sala and I talked while we were both in Buenos Aires. Perhaps I can clarify my sense of what she may have been proposing. > > There is at the moment somewhat of a gulf between the technical community and the list(s) used by the proclaimed representatives of civil society. Sometimes such differences of opinion, as well as fact, can be resoled rather quickly if they are discussed directly by people on both sides of the issue, rather than being left to fester and feed growing suspicion and/or discontent. I think that Sala thought that having some announced or implied line of communication, clearly non-exclusive, might be helpful at times. I thought so, too. > > Having seen little response from anyone on this list, perhaps the idea isn't welcome in the more formalized sense in which it has been presented, and I can understand that. I think that perhaps I could be more active from time to time in the discussions that occur, and that might help to bridge some differences between the communities. Although I consider myself more technical in the context of Internet governance discussions, I do have roots in development activities that are quite consistent with some of the expressions of opinion posted to this and similar lists. > > George > > > <> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 22:45:39 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 16:45:39 +1300 Subject: [governance] Notice of Travel Message-ID: Dear All, Apologies for the sparse reply as I have hardly had any sleep last night with all the rugby mayhem in Dubai - streaming remotely and packing. I caught the red eye to Christchurch from New Zealand from Suva through to Nadi and onwards to Chch. As such I have seen the emails regarding elections and promise to respond as soon as I am unpacked properly and settled in. It did not help that I lost my luggage :( So please bear with me for a little while longer. Kind Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Sat Nov 30 04:19:23 2013 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:19:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider In-Reply-To: References: <1385553497.39194.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006301ceedad$42860e90$c7922bb0$@benjemaa@planet.tn> Norbert, Nnenna said everything. I agree with each of her words. Me too, I ask you to reconsider. And thanks a lot anyway. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 2013/11/27 Nnenna Dear Norbert, As at yesterday night, which was really early this morning, I was still exchanging mails with you. I no longer speak a whole lot on this list for some reasons that we have mentioned at one time or another: the undermining, the attack, the heavy flow of email, some listers' overbearing attitude etc It is true that so many things are wrong with the IGC list at the moment, and we are all aware of it. Maybe we have not had the opportunity to say it openly, but here are a few truths: 1. The IGC is the widest, oldest Civil Society network that has followed the WSIS and the IG issues 2. We have a history, of collaboration, of team work and of producing joint actions 3. We chose you and Sala. We did, because we felt you two are good, qualified and have the personality to lead us 4. Being the IGC Coordinator is not a small task, the proof is that not many can/want to step into your shoes. 5. We recognise that IGC Coordinatorship is tasking: time wise, emotionally, physically, bandwidth wise, health wise and even financially. I have been on this list before it was created. When the caucus was hosted elsewhere, before we ever drafted a charter... I'm somehow part of the silent majority and I'm happy to answer the question "why are you no longer contributing to IGC?" if anybody asks me. So on behlalf of some of the silent majority, who still believe in your leadership, in your energy, who appreciate your contribution.. I ask that you reconsider. Thank you in advance. Nnenna @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 -- >> 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Nov 1 04:40:50 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 16:40:50 +0800 Subject: [governance] CS strategic objectives in Internet governance In-Reply-To: <9316B641-1958-49BE-B92F-3EFE058D52A0@glocom.ac.jp> References: <20131031102347.1ae97c45@quill> <19F0CDD2-6C54-41EA-A70F-07FB4E009AD7@glocom.ac.jp> <20131031115306.712dd75c@quill> <856BF77A-7A05-4C6C-93F3-2051534CCFF8@glocom.ac.jp> <20131031125559.3b9cdf72@quill> <9316B641-1958-49BE-B92F-3EFE058D52A0@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <52736912.4020906@ciroap.org> On 31/10/13 20:18, Adam Peake wrote: >> At least one such group is indeed in the process of forming itself, or >> at least trying to do so. I'm attaching the best information that I have >> available, which is the meeting report from a meeting on Friday that >> has been circulated on the BestBits list. > Thanks. Looks more like the Brazil coordinators, good. But if bestbits is taking on such tasks it really does need to be more transparent -- ok to use small groups to draft documents, but not to design process and representation. Perhaps Jeremy could explain how bestbits works and what its doing. The best way to stay abreast of what we're doing is to join our list, which you have, so I won't repeat everything that you've already read. But in a nutshell, following the I* meeting at which... well I'm not going to repeat the "p**** g***" terminology because some people didn't like hearing that, but anyway - we organised an ad hoc civil society meeting at which Fadi Chehadé attended to attempt to assuage our concerns. The main decision that we made before he arrived was to put forward the names of the four Brazilian civil society delegates, who had already volunteered as liaisons with the Brazilian government over the summit, to also be liaisons with the I* coalition/platform. And Joana has since posted an update of what has been going in on the closed list of that coalition/platform (note: that's not a Best Bits closed list, it's an I* closed list). Going forward, everyone (including the existing delegates) are agreed that we need to nominate more people, and to find a way of doing that across broader civil society, not just within Best Bits. Indeed Norbert raised the same as an agenda item some time ago, and there was discussion of it at the IGC workshop in Bali (that I missed unfortunately). So I don't think there is any intention for closed groups to be deciding on process and representation. -- *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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Nov 1 05:58:42 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:58:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: CS strategic objectives in Internet governance In-Reply-To: <52736912.4020906@ciroap.org> References: <20131031102347.1ae97c45@quill> <19F0CDD2-6C54-41EA-A70F-07FB4E009AD7@glocom.ac.jp> <20131031115306.712dd75c@quill> <856BF77A-7A05-4C6C-93F3-2051534CCFF8@glocom.ac.jp> <20131031125559.3b9cdf72@quill> <9316B641-1958-49BE-B92F-3EFE058D52A0@glocom.ac.jp> <52736912.4020906@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi Apologies for cross posting but it seems needed. On Oct 31, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > After the meeting, held on Oct, 25th, a closed mailing list (i-coordination at nro.net) has been created for the drafting the concept note and debating the name of the coalition. Besides the four of us, it comprises the following organizations/companies: ICC, Oracle, verizon, cisco, cra, auda, internetnz (2), eurid, lacnic, apnic, afrinic (2), icann (2), arin (2), piuha, google, sidn, isoc. It would be helpful to know the reasons given for why this listserv has to be closed if the goal is to help organize "An Open dialogue for the Evolution of Internet Governance"? (or as Wolfgang might put it, an ODFEIG). Who is this intending to keep in the dark and why, what are the strategic and tactical objectives that can only be advanced by locking out interested parties? You're not planning a military campaign or something. I'd suggest at least making the archive publicly accessible. If the group can't bring itself to do that, perhaps there could regular laundered public summaries a la the MAG? Either way, an entirely close group seems like a rather ill-advised foundation upon which to build a broad based "coalition" or "platform" or whatever we want to call it. This is how we'll get to the "grass roots" movement Chris said is urgently needed to promote transparent, accountable and MS inclusive global IG? As for the composition, if I understand correctly, you say there are 21 reps of business and the TC, plus 4 reps of CS, drawn solely from the Best Bits contingent of folks who were able to be in Bali. While you four are of course all great reps, this is obviously not a good inter-stakeholder group balance, and more people should be drawn in (although obviously not to the point of having a huge and unworkable group). So I'm happy to see Jeremy say, On Nov 1, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Going forward, everyone (including the existing delegates) are agreed that we need to nominate more people, and to find a way of doing that across broader civil society, not just within Best Bits. Indeed Norbert raised the same as an agenda item some time ago, and there was discussion of it at the IGC workshop in Bali (that I missed unfortunately). So I don't think there is any intention for closed groups to be deciding on process and representation. I think there's a need to reach beyond just the IGF-oriented chunk of CS. For example, particularly with ICANN and USG issues potentially being on the agenda, one would think there should be adequate representation of CS @ ICANN, which already deals with the TC and business extensively anyway, much more so than CS @ IGF. For example, NCUC has @ 90 organizational members and > 200 individual members, with @ 20 apps pending. NPOC has 36 organizational members, with @ a dozen apps pending. NCSG has some individual members not in either constituency. At Large has five regional organizations, each comprising dozens of user organizations (some are commercially oriented, many are CS). Yes, CS @ ICANN is broken up into silos, which is nonsense, but the point is there's a whole bunch of actors there who have pretty direct involvements and stakes and a lot of expertise on ICANN, the issues it actually governs, the relationship with the USG and possibilities for globalization, etc. Their voices should be at the table. It's not clear how to proceed with this; open dialogue is needed. I can tell you that at the ICANN Buenos Aires meeting in less than two weeks there will be multiple meetings and informal conversations around this process, and CS @ ICANN will be raising such concerns with Fadi and his senior staff. But I don't think it'd be preferable to grow the CS part of planning group through ad hoc and uncoordinated lobbying of ICANN leaders, or frankly that it should be up to them to pick and choose who from the ICANN communities can represent civil society. Same goes if there's consideration being given to other relevant coalitions, whether issue-based (privacy, IPR, whatever) or org-based (OECD CSISAC etc). We need to evolve some sort of principled basis for doing this. It would be helpful to know how those currently behind the wall are thinking about this, and what others outside it think. Thanks, 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 (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Nov 1 06:19:57 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:19:57 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: CS strategic objectives in Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131031102347.1ae97c45@quill> <19F0CDD2-6C54-41EA-A70F-07FB4E009AD7@glocom.ac.jp> <20131031115306.712dd75c@quill> <856BF77A-7A05-4C6C-93F3-2051534CCFF8@glocom.ac.jp> <20131031125559.3b9cdf72@quill> <9316B641-1958-49BE-B92F-3EFE058D52A0@glocom.ac.jp> <52736912.4020906@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5273804D.6070003@ciroap.org> On 01/11/13 17:58, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Apologies for cross posting but it seems needed. +1 Bill, and you understand this already, but just in case anyone else is confused, /the coalition/dialogue is not a Best Bits initiative./ The civil society representatives to the coalition/dialogue were simply put forward (in something of a hurry, it must be said) at a meeting that we organised. Therefore, whilst the civil society reps can pass along your points (and have already made similar points, as I understand), it isn't in their hands alone to open up the coalition/dialogue list. Therefore perhaps your message wasn't cross-posted widely enough! > As for the composition, if I understand correctly, you say there > are 21 reps of business and the TC, plus 4 reps of CS, drawn solely > from the Best Bits contingent of folks who were able to be in Bali. > While you four are of course all great reps, this is obviously not a > good inter-stakeholder group balance, and more people should be drawn > in (although obviously not to the point of having a huge and > unworkable group). Or else, another option is ultimately to pull out of the coalition/dialogue. > I think there's a need to reach beyond just the IGF-oriented chunk of > CS. ... Same goes if there's consideration being given to other > relevant coalitions, whether issue-based (privacy, IPR, whatever) or > org-based (OECD CSISAC etc). We need to evolve some sort of > principled basis for doing this. Absolutely agree. -- *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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Fri Nov 1 07:59:40 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 12:59:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] IETF sets out to PRISM-proof the Net Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:21 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > From: Richard Forno > Subject: IETF sets out to PRISM-proof the Net > Date: October 31, 2013 at 8:48:34 AM EDT > To: Infowarrior List > Cc: Dave Farber > > In response to NSA revelations, the internet’s engineers set out to > PRISM-proof the net > > Published on : 26 October 2013 - 12:25pm | By Julie Blussé (CC) > > < > http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/response-nsa-revelations-internet%E2%80%9 > 9s-engineers-set-out-prism-proof-net> > > [snip] > > For the IETF, Edward Snowden’s revelations were “a wake-up call,” said Jari > Arkko, the task force’s chair. Arkko spoke at this week’s UN-initiated > Internet Governance Forum in Bali, Indonesia. *Surprised by the scale and > tactics of surveillance, *Arkko stated the engineers are “looking at > technical changes that will raise the bar for monitoring.” > > Is IETF trying to make us believe that they did not know about NSA shenanigans, published in 2005 ? 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 avri at ella.com Fri Nov 1 09:34:12 2013 From: avri at ella.com (avri doria) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:34:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] IETF sets out to PRISM-proof the Net Message-ID: [LP] "Is IETF trying to make us believe that they did not know about NSA shenanigans, published in 2005 " New chair since then. I am not sure he is worrying about what you do our do not believe. He seems to be announcing that the ietf is going to work on the problem. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 1 10:14:09 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:14:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] IETF sets out to PRISM-proof the Net In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0FDD5CC1-A8C1-47AE-8C6F-6AB02E4E7950@hserus.net> Correct. And If you, Louis, want to call him a liar as you seem to imply, please do that on an ietf list or in personal mail to the chair. --srs (iPad) > On 01-Nov-2013, at 9:34, avri doria wrote: > > > [LP] > "Is IETF trying to make us believe that they did not know about NSA shenanigans, published in 2005 " > > New chair since then. > > I am not sure he is worrying about what you do our do not believe. He seems to be announcing that the ietf is going to work on the problem. > > > avri > > Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 11:35:09 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:35:09 -0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] IETF sets out to PRISM-proof the Net In-Reply-To: <0FDD5CC1-A8C1-47AE-8C6F-6AB02E4E7950@hserus.net> References: <0FDD5CC1-A8C1-47AE-8C6F-6AB02E4E7950@hserus.net> Message-ID: "Technical, not political". Ain't the decision of being "apolitical" - struggling in opposition to interest groups - a political one? On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Correct. And If you, Louis, want to call him a liar as you seem to imply, > please do that on an ietf list or in personal mail to the chair. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 01-Nov-2013, at 9:34, avri doria wrote: > > > [LP] > "Is IETF trying to make us believe that they did not know about NSA > shenanigans, published in 2005 " > > New chair since then. > > I am not sure he is worrying about what you do our do not believe. He > seems to be announcing that the ietf is going to work on the problem. > > > avri > > Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Nov 1 12:53:09 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 17:53:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IGOVAP] US State Dept response to WGIG In-Reply-To: <20050826011530.GD66424@hserus.net> References: <20050826011530.GD66424@hserus.net> Message-ID: Dear Suresh, In my IETF mail archives I found back this IGOVMAP contribution of yours. The list archives do not seem to exist anymore. This way you were kind enough to inform everyone if they missed the US public announcement of the USG doctrine the NSA applies. Thank you! jfc At 02:15 26/08/2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >(begin text) > >U.S. Department of State Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs > Comments of the United States of America on Internet Governance > Released by the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs August 15, 2005 > > Introduction > > The United States of America welcomes this opportunity to provide >comments on the report of the United Nations Working Group on Internet >Governance (WGIG). We would like to take this opportunity to thank the >Chairman, Secretariat and WGIG members for their efforts to tackle >such a >complex and challenging topic. Given the importance of the Internet to >current economic, social, and political developments, it is critical >that >all stakeholders in the WSIS process work together collaboratively and >constructively to find a consensus at the Tunis Phase of the Summit. The >United States reiterates its commitment to the freedom of expression, to >the need to preserve the security and stability of the Internet, and to >infrastructure development. With these fundamental principles in >mind, we >offer a series of general comments on the report as well as specific >comments on individual public policy issues referenced in the document. > > General Comments > > As stated above, the United States appreciates the hard work and >dedication of the WGIG in its efforts to produce the report. We >recognize >the WGIG's effort to help frame the global dialogue on Internet >governance >by providing an understandable working definition, identifying some >of the >public policy issues, and the roles of the various stakeholders. With >respect to the roles of the stakeholders identified in the report, the >United States believes that, while governments naturally have a key role >in the development and implementation of public policy, consultation and >cooperation with the private sector and civil society are critical to >ensuring effective, efficient and representative outcomes. > > The United States remains open to discussing with all stakeholders >ways >to improve the technical efficiency as well as the transparency and >openness of existing governance structures. However, it is important >that >the global community recognize that the existing structures have worked >effectively to make the Internet the highly robust and geographically >diverse medium that it is today. The security and stability of the >Internet must be maintained. > > The United States continues to support ubiquitous access to the >Internet >and the development of Internet infrastructure around the globe. >Continued >internationalization of the Internet is evidenced by the recent creation >of Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) for Latin America and Africa and >the enhanced efforts of the Internet community to work towards an >equitable distribution of IP addresses. For example, as of June 2005, >cumulative IPv4 address allocations had the following geographical >breakdown - 33% to the Asia Pacific Region, 32% to North America, 31% to >Europe, 3% to South America and 1% to Africa. For that same period >cumulative IPv6 allocations were - 56% to Europe, 23% to the Asia >Pacific >Region, 17% to North America, 3% to Latin American and 1% to Africa. In >addition, the establishment of 103 root servers, including mirror >roots, a >vast majority of which are located outside of the United States, >demonstrates that the Internet and its core resources are not >centralized >in one country. > > The decentralization of the Internet is further evidenced by the >level >of innovation that occurs at the edges of the network. It is at the >edges >where individuals, groups and corporations alike have the opportunity to >add value to the network through pioneering applications and services. >Local empowerment challenges traditional trade paradigms and reinforces >the importance of all stakeholders in safeguarding the security, >stability >and robustness of this interconnected network of networks. What >happens at >one point in the network has the potential to impact other points in the >network, highlighting the need for appropriate public policy at the >local >and national levels, supplemented by cooperation at the international >level. It is at the edge where the true opportunity, promise and full >participatory nature of the Internet is realized. > > Finally, the United States would like to highlight a fundamental >area of >public policy which is absent from the WGIG report - the role of an >enabling environment in Internet development and diffusion. To maximize >the economic and social benefits of the Internet, governments must focus >on creating, within their own nations, the appropriate legal, >regulatory, >and policy environment that encourages privatization, competition, and >liberalization. In particular, the role of the private sector and civil >society as the driver of innovation and private investment in the >development of the Internet is critical. Value is added at the edges of >the network, in both developed and developing countries, when the >domestic >policy environment encourages investment and innovation. > > Comments on specific Internet-related public policy issues > > Freedom of Expression: The United States reconfirms the importance of >the fundamental right to freedom of expression and to the free flow of >information as contained in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of >Human Rights, as reaffirmed in the Geneva Declaration of Principles >adopted at the first phase of WSIS. A free, independent print, broadcast >and online media is one of the key institutions of democratic life. The >United States believes that no nation can develop politically or >economically without the ability of its citizens to openly and freely >express their opinions in an environment in which everyone can seek, >receive and impart information. The United States fully supports the >principle that all measures taken in relation to the Internet, in >particular those measures taken on grounds of security or to fight >crime, >not lead to infringements on the freedom of expression. > > Internet Stability, Security and Cybercrime: Building confidence and >security in the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) >systems and networks is a priority of the United States. These >systems and >networks are subject to threats and vulnerabilities from multiple >sources >and different geographic locations; security requires a concerted >preventive effort by all stakeholders, appropriate to their roles. >National action and international collaboration across a range of legal, >enforcement, administrative and technical areas are required to build a >global culture of cybersecurity. In developing a national cybersecurity >strategy, governments should draw upon existing structures and processes >such as: the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, UNGA >Resolutions >"Combating the criminal misuse of information technologies" (55/63 and >56/121) and "Creation of a Global Culture of Cybersecurity" (57/239), >and >actions taken by computer security incident response teams (CSIRTs). > > The Internet Domain Name and Addressing System: The United States >continues to support the private sector led technical coordination and >management of the Internet's domain name and addressing system (DNS) in >the form of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >(ICANN), with government advice on DNS issues provided by the Government >Advisory Committee (GAC). We also recognize that governments have >legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the >management of their country code top level domains (ccTLD) and the >United >States is committed to working with the international community to >address >these concerns, bearing in mind the fundamental need to ensure stability >and security of the Internet's DNS. With respect to international >coordination of the DNS, WSIS should recognize the role of existing >institutions, encourage effective, bottom up decision making at the >local >level, the continued deployment of mirror roots and responsible address >allocation policies. > > Multilingualism: The United States believes that the development of >technologies that facilitate the use of domain names in languages other >than Latin based character sets is an important step in making the >Internet truly global. WSIS should encourage continued work and >collaboration on internationalized domain names by existing standards >bodies and processes by which agreement can be reached on appropriate >language tables. > > Interconnection Costs: The United States believes that >arrangements for >international Internet connections should continue to be the subject of >private, commercial negotiations. The international settlement regime >that >applies under the telecommunications regime cannot be applied to >Internet >traffic. WSIS should look to ongoing work on this important topic in >existing institutions, such as the ITU and the OECD, and encourage >national authorities to take steps to open markets to competitive entry >and promote increased competition in the market place. A competitive >market creates an enabling environment that encourages investment and/or >international infrastructure assistance. The development of regional >Internet Exchange Points and local content should also be encouraged. > > Intellectual Property Rights: The United States attaches great >importance to a comprehensive, effective and properly enforced >intellectual property system and believes that any Information Society >envisioned by the WSIS must clearly and explicitly recognize that such a >system is essential to the Information Society because it creates an >incentive for creativity and innovation. To that end, WSIS and its >documents must recognize, respect and support the existing international >intellectual property system. The balance between owners and users of >intellectual property is an important underpinning of an effective >intellectual property system. Existing international intellectual >property >agreements encompass and reflect the balance between owners and users of >intellectual property. Indeed, this balance is struck so that >intellectual >property owners are encouraged to develop and disseminate their works >and >inventions to the public for use and enjoyment. The United States >believes >that the appropriate United Nations forum for dealing with intellectual >property issues is the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), >which has regularly examined the interaction of cyberspace and >intellectual property since the early days of the Internet. > > Spam: Increasingly, spam is, in large part, a security issue: spam is >one way in which viruses and other security threats can be delivered to >computers. Industry must play a lead role in developing technical >tools to >address this problem. In addition, many of these security threats often >result from criminal conduct. The Convention on Cybercrime provides a >comprehensive framework to address these threats. In 2003, the United >States enacted an anti-spam law established a framework of civil and >criminal enforcement tools to help America's consumers, businesses, and >families combat unsolicited commercial e-mail. However, the United >States >does not believe that the statute alone will solve spam. The United >States >approach to combating spam relies on a combination of legal tools for >effective law enforcement, development and deployment of technology >tools >and best practices by the private sector, and consumer and business >education. We believe that work undertaken to combat spam should ensure >that email continues to be a viable and valuable means of communication. >Governments have a role to play in educating consumers and enforcing >spam >laws. To this end, governments should encourage spam enforcement >agencies >to join the London Action Plan on international spam enforcement >cooperation. > > Data Protection and Privacy: The United States appreciates the >concerns >expressed in the report on data protection and privacy. Protecting the >privacy of individuals' sensitive personal information is a priority for >the United States government and for United States consumers. Companies >have an important role to play by implementing reasonable safeguards to >protect sensitive consumer data. The United States also believes that >multilateral and private-sector initiatives have a strong and important >role to play in encouraging the development and use of privacy-enhancing >technologies and in promoting consumer education and awareness about >online privacy issues. A deliberate and balanced approach to privacy >that >is open to innovations offers the best environment for Internet >expansion. >Any effective approach to ensuring protection of personal information >includes: appropriate laws to protect consumer privacy in highly >sensitive >areas such as financial, medical, and children's privacy; government >enforcement of these laws; and encouragement of private sector >efforts to >protect consumer privacy. > > Consumer Protection: The United States believes that a vigorous, >competitive electronic marketplace benefits consumers. Consumer >protection >policy should ensure that consumers can make well-informed decisions >about >their choices in this marketplace and that sellers will fulfill their >promises by the products they offer. To this end, governments should >protect consumers by: (1) enforcing laws against practices that harm >consumers; (2) disseminating information and educating consumers; and >(3) >encouraging private sector leadership to develop codes of conduct and to >provide easy-to-use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for >addressing consumer complaints. These principles are expressed in >various >existing international guidelines for consumer protection, including the >United Nations Guidelines on Consumer Protection, the OECD Guidelines >for >Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, and the APEC Consumer >Protection Principles. > > Human Capacity Building: The United States believes that each person >should have the opportunity to acquire the necessary skills and >knowledge >in order to understand, participate actively in, and benefit fully from, >the Information Society and the knowledge economy. This requires >increased >capacity building in the areas of ICT policy and regulation, technology >knowhow, access to information, and the application of ICT to various >development sectors. WSIS should support the continuing work of multiple >stakeholders to build capacity of professionals and institutions in >developing nations and to ensure the efforts are both technically >innovative and supportive of market-based approaches. > > Meaningful Participation in Global Public Policy Development: The >United >States encourages the participation of developing countries in ICT >forums >as a complement to national development efforts related to ICTs. As >such, >it is important to develop the capacity of government officials and >other >stakeholders who can address the complicated issues and difficult >choices >raised by the evolving ICT environment. Through the U.S. >Telecommunications Training Institute (USTTI), the United States, >together >with U.S. industry, has demonstrated its commitment to capacity building >by providing tuition free training courses for policy makers around the >world in the telecommunications, broadcast and ICT-related fields. > > Conclusion > > The United States once again thanks the WGIG for its report and >reiterates its willingness to engage in dialogue related to Internet >governance in relevant multiple fora. Given the breadth of topics >potentially encompassed under the rubric of "Internet governance" >there is >no one venue to appropriately address the subject in its entirety. While >the United States recognizes that the current Internet system is >working, >we encourage an ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders around the >world in >the various fora as a way to facilitate discussion and to advance our >shared interest in the ongoing robustness and dynamism of the Internet. >The focus of these discussions should be on how all stakeholders can >continue to collaborate in addressing Internet-related issues. In these >fora, the United States will continue to support market-based approaches >and private sector leadership in Internet development broadly. > >(end text) > >(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. >Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) >NNNN > >------------------------------------- >You are subscribed as suresh at hserus.net >To manage your subscription, go to > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip >_______________________________________________ >IGOVAP mailing list >IGOVAP at lists.apdip.net >http://lists.apdip.net/mailman/listinfo/igovap > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 1 16:26:21 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:26:21 -0700 Subject: [governance] Brazil-Germany Motion to GA on Privacy Message-ID: <077501ced740$a7a74880$f6f5d980$@gmail.com> http://columlynch.tumblr.com/post/65706075268/the-right-to-privacy-in-the-di gital-age -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 16:30:29 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:30:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Brazil-Germany Motion to GA on Privacy In-Reply-To: <077501ced740$a7a74880$f6f5d980$@gmail.com> References: <077501ced740$a7a74880$f6f5d980$@gmail.com> Message-ID: have the original link? pls On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:26 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > http://columlynch.tumblr.com/post/65706075268/the-right-to-privacy-in-the-di > gital-age > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 16:31:35 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:31:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Brazil-Germany Motion to GA on Privacy In-Reply-To: References: <077501ced740$a7a74880$f6f5d980$@gmail.com> Message-ID: found it in the Brazil MRE page - http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/sala-de-imprensa/notas-a-imprensa/brasil-e-alemanha-apresentam-a-assembleia-geral-da-onu-projeto-de-resolucao-sobre-o-direito-a-privacidade-na-era-digital On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > have the original link? pls > > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:26 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> >> http://columlynch.tumblr.com/post/65706075268/the-right-to-privacy-in-the-di >> gital-age >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From deborah at accessnow.org Fri Nov 1 17:14:30 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 17:14:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Brazil-Germany Motion to GA on Privacy In-Reply-To: References: <077501ced740$a7a74880$f6f5d980$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Here's a blog post we on the draft resolution: https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2013/11/01/brazil-germany-introduce-resolution-on-the-right-to-privacy-in-the-digital- The official link for the draft resolution doesn't seem to be posted yet, but here's a more official looking version (in English): http://www.innercitypress.com/bzgerm1privacy110113.pdf Best, Deborah On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > found it in the Brazil MRE page - > http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/sala-de-imprensa/notas-a-imprensa/brasil-e-alemanha-apresentam-a-assembleia-geral-da-onu-projeto-de-resolucao-sobre-o-direito-a-privacidade-na-era-digital > > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> have the original link? pls >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:26 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >>> >>> http://columlynch.tumblr.com/post/65706075268/the-right-to-privacy-in-the-di >>> gital-age >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* >> Open Technology Institute >> *New America Foundation* >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.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 baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 21:10:27 2013 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 02:10:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS strategic objectives in Internet governance In-Reply-To: <20131031102347.1ae97c45@quill> References: <20131031102347.1ae97c45@quill> Message-ID: I agree with this very good idea, Norbert. Adam suggestions are also relevant. 2013/10/31 Norbert Bollow > Dear all > > In view of next year's Internet governance related summit in Brazil, I > propose that wee start a serious strategic discussion on what are the > main civil society objectives in Internet governance. > > I view this as a necessary foundation for then being able to rationally > discuss what to push for in regard to the agenda and topical breadth of > the summit. > > So: What should, in your view, our main objectives be? > > 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 > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* * *Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 1 22:21:20 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 22:21:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] IETF sets out to PRISM-proof the Net In-Reply-To: References: <0FDD5CC1-A8C1-47AE-8C6F-6AB02E4E7950@hserus.net> Message-ID: <142169d5130.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> No. It simply draws a line between public policy and petty politics aimed at jockeying for control and self aggrandizement --srs (htc one x) On 1 November 2013 11:35:09 AM Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > "Technical, not political". > Ain't the decision of being "apolitical" - struggling in opposition to > interest groups - a political one? > > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > > Correct. And If you, Louis, want to call him a liar as you seem to imply, > > please do that on an ietf list or in personal mail to the chair. > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > > On 01-Nov-2013, at 9:34, avri doria wrote: > > > > > > [LP] > > "Is IETF trying to make us believe that they did not know about NSA > > shenanigans, published in 2005 " > > > > New chair since then. > > > > I am not sure he is worrying about what you do our do not believe. He > > seems to be announcing that the ietf is going to work on the problem. > > > > > > avri > > > > Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Nov 2 09:21:01 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 14:21:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] IETF sets out to PRISM-proof the Net In-Reply-To: <0FDD5CC1-A8C1-47AE-8C6F-6AB02E4E7950@hserus.net> References: <0FDD5CC1-A8C1-47AE-8C6F-6AB02E4E7950@hserus.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 2 14:49:37 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 19:49:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier Message-ID: Very well thought out. Massive relevance to present internet power gangs. Louis - - - On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:04 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Worth reading the whole article. Lot's of relevance to IG. > > > > M > > > > *From:* David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:38 AM > *To:* ip > *Subject:* [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier > > > > > http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/the-battle-for-power-on-the-internet/280824/ > > > > The Atlantic > > > > The Battle for Power on the Internet > > Bruce Schneier Oct 24 2013, 7:07 AM ET > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 2 15:16:31 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:16:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1421a3eb310.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I must draw the attention of the co cos to this as I find this objectionable and insulting You are not talking about gangs here --srs (htc one x) On 2 November 2013 2:49:37 PM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > Very well thought out. Massive relevance to present internet power gangs. > > Louis > - - - > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:04 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > Worth reading the whole article. Lot's of relevance to IG. > > > > > > > > M > > > > > > > > *From:* David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] > > *Sent:* Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:38 AM > > *To:* ip > > *Subject:* [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier > > > > > > > > > > > http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/the-battle-for-power-on-the-internet/280824/ > > > > > > > > The Atlantic > > > > > > > > The Battle for Power on the Internet > > > > Bruce Schneier Oct 24 2013, 7:07 AM ET > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Nov 2 15:28:15 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 06:28:15 +1100 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12286CD79B5E4494A2269C4D7BC5171D@Toshiba> yes, good article on the Robin Hoods and Feudal Lords of the Internet. From: Louis Pouzin (well) Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 5:49 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier Very well thought out. Massive relevance to present internet power gangs. Louis - - - On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:04 AM, michael gurstein wrote: Worth reading the whole article. Lot's of relevance to IG. M From: David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:38 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/the-battle-for-power-on-the-internet/280824/ The Atlantic The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier Oct 24 2013, 7:07 AM ET -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Nov 2 15:41:09 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 06:41:09 +1100 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier In-Reply-To: <1421a3eb310.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <1421a3eb310.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: I suggest read the article before commenting and complaining Suresh. You might find the term gangs more appropriate if you do; and even if you dont agree with the use of the term after reading the article, you mind make allowances for the nuances involved in use of words by those for whom English is a second language. Ian Peter From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 6:16 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier I must draw the attention of the co cos to this as I find this objectionable and insulting You are not talking about gangs here --srs (htc one x) On 2 November 2013 2:49:37 PM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: Very well thought out. Massive relevance to present internet power gangs. Louis - - - On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:04 AM, michael gurstein wrote: Worth reading the whole article. Lot's of relevance to IG. M From: David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:38 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/the-battle-for-power-on-the-internet/280824/ The Atlantic The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier Oct 24 2013, 7:07 AM ET -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 2 16:08:45 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 16:08:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier In-Reply-To: References: <1421a3eb310.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <1421a6e8928.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I did. I tend to find schneier's commentary more calculated to gain press quotes and retweets rather than make serious points on a nuanced situation. Security theater is a favorite phrase of his, generally used to deride bogus security, and it is a tactic that he uses more than often possibly on a fight fire with fire basis. English isn't my first language either, with all due respect. If M. Pouzin wishes, he might want to express his thoughts again in French, if you feel there's a communication gap here. --srs (htc one x) On 2 November 2013 3:41:09 PM "Ian Peter" wrote: > I suggest read the article before commenting and complaining Suresh. You > might find the term gangs more appropriate if you do; and even if you dont > agree with the use of the term after reading the article, you mind make > allowances for the nuances involved in use of words by those for whom > English is a second language. > > Ian Peter > > > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 6:16 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: > [governance] FW: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier > > I must draw the attention of the co cos to this as I find this > objectionable and insulting > You are not talking about gangs here > > --srs (htc one x) > > > On 2 November 2013 2:49:37 PM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > > Very well thought out. Massive relevance to present internet power gangs. > > > Louis > - - - > > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:04 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Worth reading the whole article. Lot's of relevance to IG. > > > > M > > > > From: David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:38 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier > > > > http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/the-battle-for-power-on-the-internet/280824/ > > > > The Atlantic > > > > The Battle for Power on the Internet > > Bruce Schneier Oct 24 2013, 7:07 AM ET > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Nov 2 16:23:19 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 07:23:19 +1100 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier In-Reply-To: <1421a6e8928.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <1421a3eb310.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <1421a6e8928.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <97803A8A302B48C2934995DA1BB2BB4E@Toshiba> well, we all read things differently and have different opinions. I thought the description of the evolution of internet usage and related security as a battle between individual elements, including rogue gangs such as Anonymous and cybercriminal groups, and slower moving but eventually more powerful users such as corporations and governments (described as feudal powers), was quite interesting. A couple of my favourite quotes for those who wont bother to read the article: “Medieval feudalism evolved into a more balanced relationship in which lords had responsibilities as well as rights. Today’s Internet feudalism is both ad-hoc and one-sided. Those in power have a lot of rights, but increasingly few responsibilities or limits. We need to rebalance this relationship.” “Data is the pollution problem of the information age. All computer processes produce it. It stays around. How we deal with it—how we reuse and recycle it, who has access to it, how we dispose of it, and what laws regulate it—is central to how the information age functions. And I believe that just as we look back at the early decades of the industrial age and wonder how society could ignore pollution in their rush to build an industrial world, our grandchildren will look back at us during these early decades of the information age and judge us on how we dealt with the rebalancing of power resulting from all this new data.” Ian Peter From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 7:08 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier I did. I tend to find schneier's commentary more calculated to gain press quotes and retweets rather than make serious points on a nuanced situation. Security theater is a favorite phrase of his, generally used to deride bogus security, and it is a tactic that he uses more than often possibly on a fight fire with fire basis. English isn't my first language either, with all due respect. If M. Pouzin wishes, he might want to express his thoughts again in French, if you feel there's a communication gap here. --srs (htc one x) On 2 November 2013 3:41:09 PM "Ian Peter" wrote: I suggest read the article before commenting and complaining Suresh. You might find the term gangs more appropriate if you do; and even if you dont agree with the use of the term after reading the article, you mind make allowances for the nuances involved in use of words by those for whom English is a second language. Ian Peter From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 6:16 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier I must draw the attention of the co cos to this as I find this objectionable and insulting You are not talking about gangs here --srs (htc one x) On 2 November 2013 2:49:37 PM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: Very well thought out. Massive relevance to present internet power gangs. Louis - - - On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:04 AM, michael gurstein wrote: Worth reading the whole article. Lot's of relevance to IG. M From: David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:38 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/the-battle-for-power-on-the-internet/280824/ The Atlantic The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier Oct 24 2013, 7:07 AM ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 2 16:34:05 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 16:34:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier In-Reply-To: <97803A8A302B48C2934995DA1BB2BB4E@Toshiba> References: <1421a3eb310.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <1421a6e8928.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <97803A8A302B48C2934995DA1BB2BB4E@Toshiba> Message-ID: <1421a85baa8.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> None of this refers to power gangs of the internet though, whatever they are supposed to mean. --srs (htc one x) On 2 November 2013 4:23:19 PM "Ian Peter" wrote: > well, we all read things differently and have different opinions. > > I thought the description of the evolution of internet usage and related > security as a battle between individual elements, including rogue gangs > such as Anonymous and cybercriminal groups, and slower moving but > eventually more powerful users such as corporations and governments > (described as feudal powers), was quite interesting. A couple of my > favourite quotes for those who wont bother to read the article: > > “Medieval feudalism evolved into a more balanced relationship in which > lords had responsibilities as well as rights. Today’s Internet feudalism is > both ad-hoc and one-sided. Those in power have a lot of rights, but > increasingly few responsibilities or limits. We need to rebalance this > relationship.” > > “Data is the pollution problem of the information age. All computer > processes produce it. It stays around. How we deal with it—how we reuse and > recycle it, who has access to it, how we dispose of it, and what laws > regulate it—is central to how the information age functions. And I believe > that just as we look back at the early decades of the industrial age and > wonder how society could ignore pollution in their rush to build an > industrial world, our grandchildren will look back at us during these early > decades of the information age and judge us on how we dealt with the > rebalancing of power resulting from all this new data.” > > Ian Peter > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 7:08 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] FW: > [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier > > I did. I tend to find schneier's commentary more calculated to gain press > quotes and retweets rather than make serious points on a nuanced situation. > > Security theater is a favorite phrase of his, generally used to deride > bogus security, and it is a tactic that he uses more than often possibly on > a fight fire with fire basis. > English isn't my first language either, with all due respect. If M. Pouzin > wishes, he might want to express his thoughts again in French, if you feel > there's a communication gap here. > --srs (htc one x) > > > On 2 November 2013 3:41:09 PM "Ian Peter" wrote: > > I suggest read the article before commenting and complaining Suresh. You > might find the term gangs more appropriate if you do; and even if you dont > agree with the use of the term after reading the article, you mind make > allowances for the nuances involved in use of words by those for whom > English is a second language. > > Ian Peter > > > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 6:16 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Louis Pouzin (well) > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet > Bruce Schneier > > I must draw the attention of the co cos to this as I find this > objectionable and insulting > > You are not talking about gangs here > > --srs (htc one x) > > > On 2 November 2013 2:49:37 PM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > > Very well thought out. Massive relevance to present internet power gangs. > > > Louis > - - - > > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:04 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Worth reading the whole article. Lot's of relevance to IG. > > > > M > > > > From: David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:38 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier > > > > http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/the-battle-for-power-on-the-internet/280824/ > > > > The Atlantic > > > > The Battle for Power on the Internet > > Bruce Schneier Oct 24 2013, 7:07 AM ET > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 3 00:13:11 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 21:13:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] [] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier In-Reply-To: <1421a85baa8.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <1421a3eb310.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <1421a6e8928.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <97803A8A302B48C2934995DA1BB2BB4E@Toshiba> <1421a85baa8.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <2BB3DD42-D565-4881-98C6-6CF6E7C5AEAE@acm.org> Hi, I must admit I saw no mention of gangs in the article. Feudal lords, vassals and peasants, yes, but not gangs. The article, btw, seems to be the same as any number of articles he has put out lately sounding his call to desperation. Almost the same as the one that was in this year's Mind issue. He does make one point in this one I have not seen him make before that I find interesting - that all of the vendors are turning their operating systems into entry ways for walled gardens. Guess it is time to move back to a Linux flavor. sigh. avri On 2 Nov 2013, at 13:34, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > None of this refers to power gangs of the internet though, whatever they are supposed to mean. > > --srs (htc one x) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Nov 4 05:50:34 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:50:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] [] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier In-Reply-To: <2BB3DD42-D565-4881-98C6-6CF6E7C5AEAE@acm.org> References: <1421a3eb310.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <1421a6e8928.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <97803A8A302B48C2934995DA1BB2BB4E@Toshiba> <1421a85baa8.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <2BB3DD42-D565-4881-98C6-6CF6E7C5AEAE@acm.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 4 06:12:48 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 03:12:48 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [OGP] fw URGENT: Call for signatures on Surveillance statement In-Reply-To: <5275506A.40505@cippic.ca> References: <00a101ced715$83e21540$8ba63fc0$@org> <527447D0.2010207@eff.org> <5275506A.40505@cippic.ca> Message-ID: <00ca01ced94e$d248b5a0$76da20e0$@gmail.com> An interesting sign on letter below from our fraternal CS cousins in the Open Government Partnership process. The sign on letter is I think of particular interest in that it calls for transparency around surveillance to be built into national OGP plans/commitments. (evidently there was a significant dust-up between Indian Right to Information activist Aruna Roy and John Kerry over transparency, open government and surveillance as a highlight of the just concluded OGP event in London. M From: OGP [mailto:ogp-bounces at lists.opengovcanada.ca] On Behalf Of Tamir Israel Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 12:20 PM To: OGP at lists.opengovcanada.ca Subject: [OGP] fw URGENT: Call for signatures on Surveillance statement Please see the request below for a call for signatories for a statement to the OGP on the need for greater transparency in surveillance. Best, Tamir -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: FW: URGENT: Call for signatures on Surveillance > statement > Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:17:38 +0100 > From: Helen Darbishire > CC: 'Anne Jellema' > > > > * * > > I am writing from the Open Government Partnership meeting in London to > urge you to sign a statement that civil society is issuing about the > need for greater transparency around Surveillance. > > > Signatures thus far are below. Please send your signatures to me and to > Anne Jellema of the Web Foundation (anne at webfoundation.org > ). > > *Timing*: we will issue the statement at the OGP meeting today but will > continue to collect signatures through next week, with final date being > Monday 11 November. *Please sign today if you can*! > > > > Thank you in advance! > > > > Helen > > *----------------------------------------------* > > Helen Darbishire > > *Executive Director, Access Info Europe * > > Mobile + 34 667 685 319 > > Skype: helen_darbishire > > Twitter @helen_access > > > > -------//-------//---------//-------//----- > > > > Statement of Concern on Disproportionate Surveillance > > > > We, the undersigned civil society organisations, affirm our deep > commitment to the goals of the Open Government Partnership, which in its > declaration endorsed "more transparent, accountable, responsive and > effective government" founded on the principles of the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights. > > > > We join other civil society organisations, human rights groups, > academics and ordinary citizens in expressing our grave concern over > allegations that governments around the world, including many OGP > members, have been routinely intercepting and retaining the private > communications of entire populations, in secret, without warrants and > with little or no meaningful oversight. Such practices allegedly include > the routine exchange of "foreign" surveillance data in order to evade > domestic laws that restrict governments' ability to spy on their own > citizens. > > > > Such practices erode the checks and balances on which accountability > depends, and have a deeply chilling effect on freedom of expression, > information and association, without which the ideals of open government > have no meaning. > > > > As Brazil's President, Dilma Rousseff, recently said at the United > Nations, "In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true > freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy." > > > > Activities that restrict the right to privacy, including communications > surveillance, can only be justified when they are prescribed by law, are > necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, and are proportionate to the aim > pursued.# Without firm legislative and judicial checks on the > surveillance powers of the executive branch, and robust protections for > the media and public interest whistleblowers, abuses can and will occur. > > > > We call on all OGP member governments to: > > recognise the need to update understandings of existing privacy and > human rights law to reflect modern surveillance technologies and > techniques. > > commit in their OGP Action Plans to complete by October 2014 a review > of national laws, with the aim of defining reforms needed to regulate > necessary, legitimate and proportional State involvement in > communications surveillance; to guarantee freedom of the press; and to > protect whistleblowers who lawfully reveal abuses of state power. > > commit in their OGP Action Plans to transparency on the mechanisms for > surveillance, on exports of surveillance technologies, aid directed > towards implementation of surveillance technologies, and agreements to > share citizen data among states. > > > > SIGNED: > > > > Access Info Europe > > Advocacy and Legal Advice Centre, Sri Lanka > > Association EPAS, Romania > > Center for Independent Journalism, Romania > > *Centre for Law and Democracy, USA* > > *Center for Public Interest Advocacy, Bosnia Herzegovina* > > Independent Journalism Center, Moldova > > Freedom of Information Center, Armenia > > Freedom of Information Forum, Austria (FOIAustria) > > Fundar, Center for Research and Analysis, Mexico > > GESOC, Mexico > > IEEPP, Nicaragua > > Media Rights Agenda, Nigeria > > MKSS, India > > NATO Watch, UK > > Obong Denis Udo-Inyang Foundation,Nigeria > > Open Knowledge Foundation > > Open Rights Group, UK > > Privacy and Access Council of Canada Conseil du Canada de lAccХs et > la vie PrivИe > > PROETICA PERU > > Transparency International Armenia > > World Wide Web Foundation > > > > *Individuals* > > Aruna Roy > > Tim Berners-Lee > > Vinod Rai, Former Comptroller and Auditor General, India > > David Eaves > > Dwight E. Hines, Ph.D > > Nikhil Dey > > Petru Botnaru, freelance journalist, Moldova > > Satbir Singh, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and Co-Chair, South > Asian Right to Information Advocates Network > > Shankar Singh > > Sowmya Kidambi > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 5 07:11:17 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:11:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: GNSO and CEO Discussion on the Montevideo Statement References: <3758D003-D6BB-424B-84F5-B0395EC19726@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Might be of interest -- members of ICANN's GNSO Council and Fadi Chehade discuss the Montevideo Statement, the multistakeholder summit in Brazil etc. Adam Begin forwarded message: > From: Robin Gross > Date: November 4, 2013 6:31:40 PM GMT+09:00 > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: GNSO and CEO Discussion on the Montevideo Statement > Reply-To: Robin Gross > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: David Olive >> Subject: GNSO and CEO Discussion on the Montevideo Statement >> Date: November 3, 2013 10:31:52 PM PST >> To: "Drazek, Keith" , Jonathan Robinson , "Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com" , 'Tony Holmes' , "krosette at cov.com" , "robin at ipjustice.org" , "william.drake at uzh.ch" , "mllemineur at gmail.com" , Fadi Chehade , 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' >> Cc: Susie Johnson , Tina Shelebian , Robert Hoggarth , Glen de Saint Géry , Marika Konings , Carlos Reyes , Denise Michel , Theresa Swinehart , Sally Costerton , Tarek Kamel >> >> Dear Colleagues: >> >> Below is the link to the MP3 recording of the discussion on the Montevideo Statement and recent developments. >> >> https://icann.box.com/shared/static/k49p1bi9r0mvq9p5d4bw.mp3 >> >> The Adobe Connect Chat and the transcript are also attached. >> >> Regards, David >> >> >> -- >> David A. Olive >> >> General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5 >> 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey >> >> Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611 >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1C3073A1-FE98-4F72-BD32-7973F4034728[13].png Type: image/png Size: 2793 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Adobe Connect Chat - 10-31-2013.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 16092 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20131031_GNSO_CEO_MontevideoStatement_ID829442.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 49394 bytes Desc: not available 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Nov 5 07:14:29 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:44:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>,<52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> ,<0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,<78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in stone by the > end the year. Well not the end of the year, say December 15. Whether > by the coalition of the willing, or others. > > Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other > governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room > have just 7 weeks to come up with something sensible. > > So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of 2014 (Who's > afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary thing...) will > accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op to ward of > the wicked plenipot) > > Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching ICANN + > IANA contract, per what we are hearing: zero > > Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan > issues home of some coherence into existence: zero > > (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan somewhere...Parminder > and I might agree that we could do worse than starting with blowing up > OECD's ICCP and related processes to a global model in some mind meld > with ICANN as a the sugar daddy/cash machine to fund and to offer > prototypical msh processes for the borrowing...but has anyone > advocated that or anything in particular else? Nope, didn't think so.) Lee, India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part, is basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great improvement over it, since the CIRP proposal outlines an organic link of the new proposed 'policy development body' with the IGF. In its latest submission to the WG on EC, India has sought separate treatment of oversight and other public policy issues, and therefore seem to indeed have removed the I* oversight part from the proposed CIRP - which makes it almost identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF linkage bonus. And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have given a specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD ICCP kind of global body, (2) deal with the internationalisation of oversight issue separately through a techno-political body with a very thin and clearly constrained role, and (3) globally accept and formally recognise the current distributed architecture of technical and logical infrastructure related policy making and implementation processes. In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians have listed two key objectives for the proposed summit - outlines of an global institutional framework, and some global Internet related principles. I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related public policy issues (which category has been called as 'orphan issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations. And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with some principles listed in Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point. We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil summit initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new non-gov stakeholders coalition, which also seeks to develop substantive positions. We need to get pro-active, and produce substantive positions towards the summit. parminder > And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot > matters? Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or > Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the last several > decades, to realize what is really likely to happen there. Or not. > > Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like a > classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is indeed the > group hug/photo op. And a press release. > > If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents: > > forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page > press release. > > Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this. > > Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down to say > 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we should say it. > > Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate, attend, > whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but > remember if we are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: > deal with it, and be very succinct. > > Lee > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Cake > [dave at difference.com.au] > *Sent:* Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow > lunchtime > > > On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake > > wrote: >> >> >> Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their primary >> motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led body for >> Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are forcing their >> timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a hurry to create >> a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a clear >> alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what exact >> form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS or any >> other group that will lend the effort credibility and participate >> constructively, and they are to a large extent rushing things >> largely due to circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, >> and basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance). >> >> >> It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of >> inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I feel >> very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally >> uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses. >> There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was WCIT >> in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the Internet, and >> the final treaty that provoked so much rejection was really not that >> bad. Now we are told we have to get all scared again and use the Rio >> meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and the actual Internet >> governance institutions, but to deal with an extremely broad agenda >> merely in order to pre-empt the ITU. > > Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of nations > like South Korea) who had become more inclined to multi-lateralism > since WCIT, with the additional impetus of post-Snowden anti-USG > feeling. The Montevideo statement and outreach to Brazil etc seems to > have been prompted by a strong feeling among the I* that the current > political climate is worse than in 2010, or even in 2012. I can't say > whether their impressions are correct, but it does seem likely that > they would strongly reject the line of argument you are putting here. > I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to fix > ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in the > IANA contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight for > renegotiation, I would have thought. And good. > > >> And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government >> coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is nothing >> close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU into IG. Can >> we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is happening? > > Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders than I > do, so if he says things are substantially worse since WCIT, I have no > reason to doubt him either. > >> More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of >> letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you always >> reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own? > > We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a little. > I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge spontaneously > post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it as becoming urgent > they started the process themselves. > > >> This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion >> about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part of >> that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that those >> of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself) are very >> keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN accountability. I >> find it very odd over the last few days to be cast into the role >> of defender of ICANN against paranoia and misinformation - there >> are quite enough valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near >> allergic reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts >> of its leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies >> or misrepresenting its processes. >> >> >> I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my >> messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to >> reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), and a >> determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful >> initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I just >> don't think we need to be driven by fear. > > Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but I'll > cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you specifically, as of > course you do have strong understanding of ICANNs processes, though > you do still seem to see this through a somewhat ICANN-centric point > of view, which I still think is likely to not be so useful a > perspective ongoing. While an opportunity to discuss the IANA > contract, oversight of ICANN, etc is welcome, that really doesn't seem > to be the main focus of any of what the Brazil meeting is about, and > ICANNs seemingly central role might have more to do with Fadi > personally choosing to push the process along. > > Regards > > David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 5 08:57:05 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 05:57:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> Message-ID: But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by India, no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian bureaucrat. And it never did have broad support or consensus that'd make it viable even if India had not repudiated it. So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any comparison with the ICCP is thankfully, moot. --srs (iPad) > On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder wrote: > > >> On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> >> The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in stone by the end the year. Well not the end of the year, say December 15. Whether by the coalition of the willing, or others. >> >> Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room have just 7 weeks to come up with something sensible. >> >> So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of 2014 (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary thing...) will accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op to ward of the wicked plenipot) >> >> Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching ICANN + IANA contract, per what we are hearing: zero >> >> Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan issues home of some coherence into existence: zero >> >> (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we could do worse than starting with blowing up OECD's ICCP and related processes to a global model in some mind meld with ICANN as a the sugar daddy/cash machine to fund and to offer prototypical msh processes for the borrowing...but has anyone advocated that or anything in particular else? Nope, didn't think so.) > > Lee, > > India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part, is basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great improvement over it, since the CIRP proposal outlines an organic link of the new proposed 'policy development body' with the IGF. In its latest submission to the WG on EC, India has sought separate treatment of oversight and other public policy issues, and therefore seem to indeed have removed the I* oversight part from the proposed CIRP - which makes it almost identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF linkage bonus. > > And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have given a specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD ICCP kind of global body, (2) deal with the internationalisation of oversight issue separately through a techno-political body with a very thin and clearly constrained role, and (3) globally accept and formally recognise the current distributed architecture of technical and logical infrastructure related policy making and implementation processes. > > In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians have listed two key objectives for the proposed summit - outlines of an global institutional framework, and some global Internet related principles. > > I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related public policy issues (which category has been called as 'orphan issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations. > > And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with some principles listed in Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point. > > We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil summit initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new non-gov stakeholders coalition, which also seeks to develop substantive positions. We need to get pro-active, and produce substantive positions towards the summit. > > parminder > > > > > >> And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot matters? Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the last several decades, to realize what is really likely to happen there. Or not. >> >> Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like a classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is indeed the group hug/photo op. And a press release. >> >> If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents: >> >> forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page press release. >> >> Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this. >> >> Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down to say 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we should say it. >> >> Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate, attend, whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but remember if we are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: deal with it, and be very succinct. >> >> Lee >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Cake [dave at difference.com.au] >> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller >> Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime >> >> >>> On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake wrote: >>>> >>>> Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a large extent rushing things largely due to circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance). >>> >>> It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I feel very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses. There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was WCIT in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the Internet, and the final treaty that provoked so much rejection was really not that bad. Now we are told we have to get all scared again and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and the actual Internet governance institutions, but to deal with an extremely broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt the ITU. >> >> Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of nations like South Korea) who had become more inclined to multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the additional impetus of post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The Montevideo statement and outreach to Brazil etc seems to have been prompted by a strong feeling among the I* that the current political climate is worse than in 2010, or even in 2012. I can't say whether their impressions are correct, but it does seem likely that they would strongly reject the line of argument you are putting here. >> I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to fix ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in the IANA contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight for renegotiation, I would have thought. And good. >> >> >>> And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is nothing close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU into IG. Can we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is happening? >> >> Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders than I do, so if he says things are substantially worse since WCIT, I have no reason to doubt him either. >> >>> More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you always reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own? >> >> We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it as becoming urgent they started the process themselves. >> >> >>> >>>> This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or misrepresenting its processes. >>> >>> I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), and a determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I just don't think we need to be driven by fear. >> >> Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but I'll cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you specifically, as of course you do have strong understanding of ICANNs processes, though you do still seem to see this through a somewhat ICANN-centric point of view, which I still think is likely to not be so useful a perspective ongoing. While an opportunity to discuss the IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc is welcome, that really doesn't seem to be the main focus of any of what the Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central role might have more to do with Fadi personally choosing to push the process along. >> >> Regards >> >> David > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Nov 5 09:20:41 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 14:20:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A40B6@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Well Suresh, if we think of a ICANN-msh-procedures-based/melded/funded CIRP, then that could be a different story conclusion this time around. ; ) Parminder, agreed with your 1); 2); 3); 4) Take-aways from the summit, that is not too long a list for the press release ; ) Parminder said: I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related public policy issues (which category has been called as 'orphan issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations. And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with some principles listed in Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point. Lee replied: starting on 4) with the 10 Internet rights and principles doc, already vetted and widely circulated and translated, I would think CS has much to offer here. Perhaps we were not as detailed or specific as Dilma might wish re surveillance; but cs has a strong starting point imo. Re 1) 'internet related public policy issues' a new name would be needed, there I agree with Suresh. Still, somehow I don't see continued talk of 'orphan issues' once there is an imagined home; current phraseology is just a passing phase. 2 scenarios I will throw out there are: 1) CIRP rewrite to GICCP; for 'global Internet,' rest lifted from OECD; initial $ and staff support/shared virtual and human infrastructure courtesy ICANN, I orgs, and CS. 2) Enhanced IGF, with small secretariat/global virtual reach, initial $ and staff support/shared virtual and human infrastructure courtesy ICANN, I orgs, and CS. Now re your 2), ICANNinternationalisation, agreed. In both of my cases, the whole transition path is more credible with a further shift in the IANA contract etc, as good faith gesture on ICANN's part. IGP has already made quite speciic proposals there; admittedly unlikely to all be accepted by next month by broader CS. Although we would hope Best Bits could : ). But at the least if we agree ICANN is also on the table and fair game for discussion in May, then that is step forward. Finally re Parminder's 3), '(3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations.' that is where the i orgs, icann, cs, private sector can best focus on interim msh procedures for moving ahead, then we really have something to offer/propose at the May summit. In my opinion. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 8:57 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by India, no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian bureaucrat. And it never did have broad support or consensus that'd make it viable even if India had not repudiated it. So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any comparison with the ICCP is thankfully, moot. --srs (iPad) On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder > wrote: On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in stone by the end the year. Well not the end of the year, say December 15. Whether by the coalition of the willing, or others. Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room have just 7 weeks to come up with something sensible. So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of 2014 (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary thing...) will accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op to ward of the wicked plenipot) Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching ICANN + IANA contract, per what we are hearing: zero Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan issues home of some coherence into existence: zero (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we could do worse than starting with blowing up OECD's ICCP and related processes to a global model in some mind meld with ICANN as a the sugar daddy/cash machine to fund and to offer prototypical msh processes for the borrowing...but has anyone advocated that or anything in particular else? Nope, didn't think so.) Lee, India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part, is basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great improvement over it, since the CIRP proposal outlines an organic link of the new proposed 'policy development body' with the IGF. In its latest submission to the WG on EC, India has sought separate treatment of oversight and other public policy issues, and therefore seem to indeed have removed the I* oversight part from the proposed CIRP - which makes it almost identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF linkage bonus. And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have given a specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD ICCP kind of global body, (2) deal with the internationalisation of oversight issue separately through a techno-political body with a very thin and clearly constrained role, and (3) globally accept and formally recognise the current distributed architecture of technical and logical infrastructure related policy making and implementation processes. In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians have listed two key objectives for the proposed summit - outlines of an global institutional framework, and some global Internet related principles. I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related public policy issues (which category has been called as 'orphan issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations. And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with some principles listed in Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point. We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil summit initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new non-gov stakeholders coalition, which also seeks to develop substantive positions. We need to get pro-active, and produce substantive positions towards the summit. parminder And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot matters? Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the last several decades, to realize what is really likely to happen there. Or not. Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like a classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is indeed the group hug/photo op. And a press release. If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents: forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page press release. Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this. Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down to say 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we should say it. Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate, attend, whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but remember if we are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: deal with it, and be very succinct. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Cake [dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake > wrote: Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a large extent rushing things largely due to circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance). It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I feel very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses. There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was WCIT in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the Internet, and the final treaty that provoked so much rejection was really not that bad. Now we are told we have to get all scared again and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and the actual Internet governance institutions, but to deal with an extremely broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt the ITU. Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of nations like South Korea) who had become more inclined to multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the additional impetus of post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The Montevideo statement and outreach to Brazil etc seems to have been prompted by a strong feeling among the I* that the current political climate is worse than in 2010, or even in 2012. I can't say whether their impressions are correct, but it does seem likely that they would strongly reject the line of argument you are putting here. I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to fix ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in the IANA contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight for renegotiation, I would have thought. And good. And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is nothing close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU into IG. Can we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is happening? Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders than I do, so if he says things are substantially worse since WCIT, I have no reason to doubt him either. More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you always reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own? We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it as becoming urgent they started the process themselves. This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or misrepresenting its processes. I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), and a determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I just don't think we need to be driven by fear. Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but I'll cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you specifically, as of course you do have strong understanding of ICANNs processes, though you do still seem to see this through a somewhat ICANN-centric point of view, which I still think is likely to not be so useful a perspective ongoing. While an opportunity to discuss the IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc is welcome, that really doesn't seem to be the main focus of any of what the Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central role might have more to do with Fadi personally choosing to push the process along. Regards David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 5 09:31:53 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 06:31:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A40B6@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A40B6@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Creating a brand new organization and inventing a governance / stakeholder mix for it from scratch sounds like an interesting gedankenexperiment, I must say. However in practice it seems far better to engage internally with existing organizations, especially where they are already multistakeholder. This especially goes for increased civil society participation in ICANN - in NCUC as well as in the other constitutencies where civil society members represent their own employers but would be well suited to bring in civil society viewpoints as far is consistent with their mandate .. or at the least, ensure an adequate level of engagement with civil society. The underpinnings of MSism do exist in ICANN though different sections of it have entrenched special interests - which is not something I foresee will magically go away if either an ITU overseen international body steps in, or whether this new CIRP structured on the OECD ICCP and layered with multistakeholderism comes into place .. never mind the obvious question about whether or not different stakeholder groups wouldn't jockey for control of this new organization. --srs (iPad) > On 05-Nov-2013, at 6:20, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > Well Suresh, if we think of a ICANN-msh-procedures-based/melded/funded CIRP, then that could be a different story conclusion this time around. ; ) > > Parminder, agreed with your > > 1); 2); 3); 4) Take-aways from the summit, that is not too long a list for the press release ; ) > > Parminder said: I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related public policy issues (which category has been called as 'orphan issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations. > > And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with some principles listed in Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point. > > Lee replied: starting on 4) with the 10 Internet rights and principles doc, already vetted and widely circulated and translated, I would think CS has much to offer here. Perhaps we were not as detailed or specific as Dilma might wish re surveillance; but cs has a strong starting point imo. > > Re 1) 'internet related public policy issues' a new name would be needed, there I agree with Suresh. Still, somehow I don't see continued talk of 'orphan issues' once there is an imagined home; current phraseology is just a passing phase. 2 scenarios I will throw out there are: > > 1) CIRP rewrite to GICCP; for 'global Internet,' rest lifted from OECD; initial $ and staff support/shared virtual and human infrastructure courtesy ICANN, I orgs, and CS. > > 2) Enhanced IGF, with small secretariat/global virtual reach, initial $ and staff support/shared virtual and human infrastructure courtesy ICANN, I orgs, and CS. > > > Now re your 2), ICANNinternationalisation, agreed. In both of my cases, the whole transition path is more credible with a further shift in the IANA contract etc, as good faith gesture on ICANN's part. IGP has already made quite speciic proposals there; admittedly unlikely to all be accepted by next month by broader CS. Although we would hope Best Bits could : ). But at the least if we agree ICANN is also on the table and fair game for discussion in May, then that is step forward. > > Finally re Parminder's 3), '(3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations.' > that is where the i orgs, icann, cs, private sector can best focus on interim msh procedures for moving ahead, then we really have something to offer/propose at the May summit. > > In my opinion. > > Lee > > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 8:57 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime > > But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by India, no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian bureaucrat. And it never did have broad support or consensus that'd make it viable even if India had not repudiated it. > > So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any comparison with the ICCP is thankfully, moot. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder wrote: > >> >>> On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> >>> >>> The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in stone by the end the year. Well not the end of the year, say December 15. Whether by the coalition of the willing, or others. >>> >>> Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room have just 7 weeks to come up with something sensible. >>> >>> So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of 2014 (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary thing...) will accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op to ward of the wicked plenipot) >>> >>> Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching ICANN + IANA contract, per what we are hearing: zero >>> >>> Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan issues home of some coherence into existence: zero >>> >>> (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we could do worse than starting with blowing up OECD's ICCP and related processes to a global model in some mind meld with ICANN as a the sugar daddy/cash machine to fund and to offer prototypical msh processes for the borrowing...but has anyone advocated that or anything in particular else? Nope, didn't think so.) >> >> Lee, >> >> India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part, is basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great improvement over it, since the CIRP proposal outlines an organic link of the new proposed 'policy development body' with the IGF. In its latest submission to the WG on EC, India has sought separate treatment of oversight and other public policy issues, and therefore seem to indeed have removed the I* oversight part from the proposed CIRP - which makes it almost identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF linkage bonus. >> >> And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have given a specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD ICCP kind of global body, (2) deal with the internationalisation of oversight issue separately through a techno-political body with a very thin and clearly constrained role, and (3) globally accept and formally recognise the current distributed architecture of technical and logical infrastructure related policy making and implementation processes. >> >> In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians have listed two key objectives for the proposed summit - outlines of an global institutional framework, and some global Internet related principles. >> >> I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related public policy issues (which category has been called as 'orphan issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations. >> >> And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with some principles listed in Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point. >> >> We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil summit initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new non-gov stakeholders coalition, which also seeks to develop substantive positions. We need to get pro-active, and produce substantive positions towards the summit. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >>> And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot matters? Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the last several decades, to realize what is really likely to happen there. Or not. >>> >>> Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like a classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is indeed the group hug/photo op. And a press release. >>> >>> If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents: >>> >>> forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page press release. >>> >>> Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this. >>> >>> Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down to say 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we should say it. >>> >>> Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate, attend, whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but remember if we are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: deal with it, and be very succinct. >>> >>> Lee >>> >>> >>> >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Cake [dave at difference.com.au] >>> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime >>> >>> >>>> On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a large extent rushing things largely due to circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance). >>>> >>>> It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I feel very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses. There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was WCIT in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the Internet, and the final treaty that provoked so much rejection was really not that bad. Now we are told we have to get all scared again and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and the actual Internet governance institutions, but to deal with an extremely broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt the ITU. >>> >>> Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of nations like South Korea) who had become more inclined to multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the additional impetus of post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The Montevideo statement and outreach to Brazil etc seems to have been prompted by a strong feeling among the I* that the current political climate is worse than in 2010, or even in 2012. I can't say whether their impressions are correct, but it does seem likely that they would strongly reject the line of argument you are putting here. >>> I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to fix ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in the IANA contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight for renegotiation, I would have thought. And good. >>> >>> >>>> And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is nothing close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU into IG. Can we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is happening? >>> >>> Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders than I do, so if he says things are substantially worse since WCIT, I have no reason to doubt him either. >>> >>>> More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you always reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own? >>> >>> We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it as becoming urgent they started the process themselves. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or misrepresenting its processes. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), and a determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I just don't think we need to be driven by fear. >>> >>> Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but I'll cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you specifically, as of course you do have strong understanding of ICANNs processes, though you do still seem to see this through a somewhat ICANN-centric point of view, which I still think is likely to not be so useful a perspective ongoing. While an opportunity to discuss the IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc is welcome, that really doesn't seem to be the main focus of any of what the Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central role might have more to do with Fadi personally choosing to push the process along. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> David >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Nov 5 10:26:30 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 15:26:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A40B6@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A4105@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Please refer to new/old names GICCP or IGF ; ) Seriously. CIRP is dead and buried, long live GICCP and IGF! Lee PS: And really Suresh? Interests will jockey for influence and control? Now I am truly shocked! ; ) Or not at all. But moving discussion forward is fine. Also, how much to defer to IG sugar daddy/msh-good practice modeller (and yeah ok, also as occasional exemplar of what not to do), it is far too soon to say. Especially if the I orgs and make new baby more their own : ) Not to mention CS. ________________________________ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:31 AM To: Lee W McKnight Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime Creating a brand new organization and inventing a governance / stakeholder mix for it from scratch sounds like an interesting gedankenexperiment, I must say. However in practice it seems far better to engage internally with existing organizations, especially where they are already multistakeholder. This especially goes for increased civil society participation in ICANN - in NCUC as well as in the other constitutencies where civil society members represent their own employers but would be well suited to bring in civil society viewpoints as far is consistent with their mandate .. or at the least, ensure an adequate level of engagement with civil society. The underpinnings of MSism do exist in ICANN though different sections of it have entrenched special interests - which is not something I foresee will magically go away if either an ITU overseen international body steps in, or whether this new CIRP structured on the OECD ICCP and layered with multistakeholderism comes into place .. never mind the obvious question about whether or not different stakeholder groups wouldn't jockey for control of this new organization. --srs (iPad) On 05-Nov-2013, at 6:20, Lee W McKnight > wrote: Well Suresh, if we think of a ICANN-msh-procedures-based/melded/funded CIRP, then that could be a different story conclusion this time around. ; ) Parminder, agreed with your 1); 2); 3); 4) Take-aways from the summit, that is not too long a list for the press release ; ) Parminder said: I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related public policy issues (which category has been called as 'orphan issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations. And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with some principles listed in Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point. Lee replied: starting on 4) with the 10 Internet rights and principles doc, already vetted and widely circulated and translated, I would think CS has much to offer here. Perhaps we were not as detailed or specific as Dilma might wish re surveillance; but cs has a strong starting point imo. Re 1) 'internet related public policy issues' a new name would be needed, there I agree with Suresh. Still, somehow I don't see continued talk of 'orphan issues' once there is an imagined home; current phraseology is just a passing phase. 2 scenarios I will throw out there are: 1) CIRP rewrite to GICCP; for 'global Internet,' rest lifted from OECD; initial $ and staff support/shared virtual and human infrastructure courtesy ICANN, I orgs, and CS. 2) Enhanced IGF, with small secretariat/global virtual reach, initial $ and staff support/shared virtual and human infrastructure courtesy ICANN, I orgs, and CS. Now re your 2), ICANNinternationalisation, agreed. In both of my cases, the whole transition path is more credible with a further shift in the IANA contract etc, as good faith gesture on ICANN's part. IGP has already made quite speciic proposals there; admittedly unlikely to all be accepted by next month by broader CS. Although we would hope Best Bits could : ). But at the least if we agree ICANN is also on the table and fair game for discussion in May, then that is step forward. Finally re Parminder's 3), '(3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations.' that is where the i orgs, icann, cs, private sector can best focus on interim msh procedures for moving ahead, then we really have something to offer/propose at the May summit. In my opinion. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 8:57 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by India, no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian bureaucrat. And it never did have broad support or consensus that'd make it viable even if India had not repudiated it. So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any comparison with the ICCP is thankfully, moot. --srs (iPad) On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder > wrote: On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in stone by the end the year. Well not the end of the year, say December 15. Whether by the coalition of the willing, or others. Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room have just 7 weeks to come up with something sensible. So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of 2014 (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary thing...) will accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op to ward of the wicked plenipot) Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching ICANN + IANA contract, per what we are hearing: zero Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan issues home of some coherence into existence: zero (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we could do worse than starting with blowing up OECD's ICCP and related processes to a global model in some mind meld with ICANN as a the sugar daddy/cash machine to fund and to offer prototypical msh processes for the borrowing...but has anyone advocated that or anything in particular else? Nope, didn't think so.) Lee, India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part, is basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great improvement over it, since the CIRP proposal outlines an organic link of the new proposed 'policy development body' with the IGF. In its latest submission to the WG on EC, India has sought separate treatment of oversight and other public policy issues, and therefore seem to indeed have removed the I* oversight part from the proposed CIRP - which makes it almost identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF linkage bonus. And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have given a specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD ICCP kind of global body, (2) deal with the internationalisation of oversight issue separately through a techno-political body with a very thin and clearly constrained role, and (3) globally accept and formally recognise the current distributed architecture of technical and logical infrastructure related policy making and implementation processes. In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians have listed two key objectives for the proposed summit - outlines of an global institutional framework, and some global Internet related principles. I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related public policy issues (which category has been called as 'orphan issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations. And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with some principles listed in Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point. We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil summit initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new non-gov stakeholders coalition, which also seeks to develop substantive positions. We need to get pro-active, and produce substantive positions towards the summit. parminder And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot matters? Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the last several decades, to realize what is really likely to happen there. Or not. Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like a classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is indeed the group hug/photo op. And a press release. If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents: forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page press release. Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this. Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down to say 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we should say it. Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate, attend, whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but remember if we are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: deal with it, and be very succinct. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Cake [dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake > wrote: Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a large extent rushing things largely due to circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance). It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I feel very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses. There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was WCIT in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the Internet, and the final treaty that provoked so much rejection was really not that bad. Now we are told we have to get all scared again and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and the actual Internet governance institutions, but to deal with an extremely broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt the ITU. Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of nations like South Korea) who had become more inclined to multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the additional impetus of post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The Montevideo statement and outreach to Brazil etc seems to have been prompted by a strong feeling among the I* that the current political climate is worse than in 2010, or even in 2012. I can't say whether their impressions are correct, but it does seem likely that they would strongly reject the line of argument you are putting here. I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to fix ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in the IANA contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight for renegotiation, I would have thought. And good. And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is nothing close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU into IG. Can we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is happening? Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders than I do, so if he says things are substantially worse since WCIT, I have no reason to doubt him either. More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you always reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own? We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it as becoming urgent they started the process themselves. This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or misrepresenting its processes. I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), and a determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I just don't think we need to be driven by fear. Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but I'll cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you specifically, as of course you do have strong understanding of ICANNs processes, though you do still seem to see this through a somewhat ICANN-centric point of view, which I still think is likely to not be so useful a perspective ongoing. While an opportunity to discuss the IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc is welcome, that really doesn't seem to be the main focus of any of what the Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central role might have more to do with Fadi personally choosing to push the process along. Regards David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Tue Nov 5 16:26:32 2013 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 19:26:32 -0200 Subject: [governance] DNS WOMEN BREAKFAST - SHERATON HOTEL BUENOS AIRES - MONDAY NOV 18th - 7:00 AM - room CATALINAS - ICANN MEETING Message-ID: Hi to All women in this list As in last two years since we became part of the ICANN Agenda, we will have our DNS WOMEN BREAKFAST, inviting all professional women attending ICANN meetings. If you are going to ICANN meeting and/or have another friend who you know will attend, please spread the word. Kisses to all and hope to see you there! Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 5 18:06:17 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 12:06:17 +1300 Subject: [governance] Global Digital Wars #Huawei #Australia Message-ID: <6629E791-0E10-4924-A3E4-3209D77FC158@gmail.com> Dear All, I read this last night and found it interesting: http://www.afr.com/p/blogs/christopher_joye/global_digital_wars_take_australia_j2y7mWOY7nkDRg1yvzI0wM 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 Wed Nov 6 03:40:33 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 14:10:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 05 November 2013 07:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by India, Just for factual correction.... CIRP was never repudiated by India. the fact that they showed openness to engage with critical comments cannot be held against them. If they did engage, one is saying they have repudiated their earlier stand, if they hadnt engaged one would call them closed and inflexible... Damned if you do, damned if you dont. Essentially the same proposal is put forward by India in its WGEC response - without the name though, and with an improvement of separating the treatment of the 'oversight' issue which India now wants to be seen separately from the mandate of the body which deals with general public policy issues related to the Internet. So, the Indian proposal for a new body for the latter purpose is still fully current. > no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian bureaucrat. It was government of India proposal with clearance from the highest level, and all concerned ministries. Daily Mail, which has an overly conservative image even in UK, isnt the most authoritative source of Southern geo politics. > And it never did have broad support or consensus that'd make it > viable even if India had not repudiated it. Again, India never repudiated it. In any case, the main burden of my email is not that there is one view on the subject, but that we need to begin a structured discussion on the needed institutional frameworks. parminder parminder > > So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any comparison with the > ICCP is thankfully, moot. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder > wrote: > >> >> On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> >>> >>> The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in stone by >>> the end the year. Well not the end of the year, say December 15. >>> Whether by the coalition of the willing, or others. >>> >>> Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other >>> governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room >>> have just 7 weeks to come up with something sensible. >>> >>> So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of 2014 >>> (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary thing...) will >>> accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op to ward >>> of the wicked plenipot) >>> >>> Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching ICANN >>> + IANA contract, per what we are hearing: zero >>> >>> Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan >>> issues home of some coherence into existence: zero >>> >>> (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan somewhere...Parminder >>> and I might agree that we could do worse than starting with blowing >>> up OECD's ICCP and related processes to a global model in some mind >>> meld with ICANN as a the sugar daddy/cash machine to fund and to >>> offer prototypical msh processes for the borrowing...but has anyone >>> advocated that or anything in particular else? Nope, didn't think so.) >> >> Lee, >> >> India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part, is >> basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great improvement over it, >> since the CIRP proposal outlines an organic link of the new proposed >> 'policy development body' with the IGF. In its latest submission to >> the WG on EC, India has sought separate treatment of oversight and >> other public policy issues, and therefore seem to indeed have removed >> the I* oversight part from the proposed CIRP - which makes it almost >> identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF linkage bonus. >> >> And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have given a >> specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD ICCP kind of >> global body, (2) deal with the internationalisation of oversight >> issue separately through a techno-political body with a very thin and >> clearly constrained role, and (3) globally accept and formally >> recognise the current distributed architecture of technical and >> logical infrastructure related policy making and implementation >> processes. >> >> In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians have >> listed two key objectives for the proposed summit - outlines of an >> global institutional framework, and some global Internet related >> principles. >> >> I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional >> framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related >> public policy issues (which category has been called as 'orphan >> issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of >> ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy >> development and day to day technical operations. >> >> And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with >> some principles listed in Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point. >> >> We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over >> procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil summit >> initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new non-gov >> stakeholders coalition, which also seeks to develop substantive >> positions. We need to get pro-active, and produce substantive >> positions towards the summit. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >>> And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot >>> matters? Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or >>> Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the last several >>> decades, to realize what is really likely to happen there. Or not. >>> >>> Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like a >>> classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is indeed the >>> group hug/photo op. And a press release. >>> >>> If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents: >>> >>> forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page >>> press release. >>> >>> Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this. >>> >>> Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down to >>> say 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we should say >>> it. >>> >>> Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate, attend, >>> whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but >>> remember if we are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: >>> deal with it, and be very succinct. >>> >>> Lee >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Cake >>> [dave at difference.com.au] >>> *Sent:* Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM >>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting >>> tomorrow lunchtime >>> >>> >>> On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller >> > wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their >>>> primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led >>>> body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are >>>> forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a >>>> hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a >>>> clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what >>>> exact form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS >>>> or any other group that will lend the effort credibility and >>>> participate constructively, and they are to a large extent >>>> rushing things largely due to circumstances/opportunity, >>>> improvising as they go, and basically dancing as fast as they >>>> can (and boy can Fadi dance). >>>> >>>> >>>> It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of >>>> inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I feel >>>> very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally >>>> uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses. >>>> There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was WCIT >>>> in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the Internet, >>>> and the final treaty that provoked so much rejection was really not >>>> that bad. Now we are told we have to get all scared again and use >>>> the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and the actual >>>> Internet governance institutions, but to deal with an extremely >>>> broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt the ITU. >>> >>> Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of >>> nations like South Korea) who had become more inclined to >>> multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the additional impetus of >>> post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The Montevideo statement and outreach >>> to Brazil etc seems to have been prompted by a strong feeling among >>> the I* that the current political climate is worse than in 2010, or >>> even in 2012. I can't say whether their impressions are correct, but >>> it does seem likely that they would strongly reject the line of >>> argument you are putting here. >>> I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to >>> fix ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in >>> the IANA contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight >>> for renegotiation, I would have thought. And good. >>> >>> >>>> And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government >>>> coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is >>>> nothing close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU >>>> into IG. Can we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is >>>> happening? >>> >>> Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders than >>> I do, so if he says things are substantially worse since WCIT, I >>> have no reason to doubt him either. >>> >>>> More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of >>>> letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you always >>>> reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own? >>> >>> We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a >>> little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge >>> spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it as >>> becoming urgent they started the process themselves. >>> >>> >>>> This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion >>>> about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part >>>> of that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that >>>> those of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself) >>>> are very keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN >>>> accountability. I find it very odd over the last few days to be >>>> cast into the role of defender of ICANN against paranoia and >>>> misinformation - there are quite enough valid reasons to >>>> criticise ICANN (and the near allergic reaction to the idea of >>>> real accountability from parts of its leadership are among >>>> them) without making up conspiracies or misrepresenting its >>>> processes. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my >>>> messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to >>>> reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), and >>>> a determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful >>>> initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I >>>> just don't think we need to be driven by fear. >>> >>> Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but I'll >>> cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you specifically, as >>> of course you do have strong understanding of ICANNs processes, >>> though you do still seem to see this through a somewhat >>> ICANN-centric point of view, which I still think is likely to not be >>> so useful a perspective ongoing. While an opportunity to discuss the >>> IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc is welcome, that really >>> doesn't seem to be the main focus of any of what the Brazil meeting >>> is about, and ICANNs seemingly central role might have more to do >>> with Fadi personally choosing to push the process along. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> David >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lucabelli at hotmail.it Wed Nov 6 04:05:22 2013 From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:05:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] The Value of Net Neutrality Was:Re:[bestbits] Marco Civil vote posponed ! In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Dear all, As stressed by Louis, Network Neutrality is a thorny and multifaceted issue. The NN debate is gaining great political momentum because it has obvious consequences on media (de)centralisation and therefore on media control. One of the points of rough consensus that clearly emerged during IGF workshop 340 “Network Neutrality: from Architecture to Norms” is that the protection of NN has direct consequences on the full enjoyment of end-users’ human rights, on media pluralism and on consumers’ rights. And these consequences are particularly amplified when Internet users are marginalised people who are not able to organise themselves and get their voice heard by policy-makers. The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DC NN) has elaborated a Report on “The Value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow” that aims at elucidating some of the facets of the NN debate, focusing particularly on human rights issues. The report is available here: http://nebula.wsimg.com/22eb364444f4e32abb876b9be835baf8?AccessKeyId=B45063449B96D27B8F85&disposition=0 By all means, comments are more than welcome. Furthermore, the DC NN has developed a model framework on net neutrality, transposing the IETF standardisation process to NN policy-making (see the contribution on “A Discourse Principle Approach to Network Neutrality” in the DC NN report). The elaboration of the model framework was initiated and has been stimulated by the Council of Europe that stressed the need for a model framework on net neutrality since 2010 (see: art 9 of the CoE Committee of Ministers Declaration on Network Neutrality). The model has been developed entirely online by the DC NN through an open, transparent, inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach and is going to be communicated to the CoE Committee of Ministers in a couple of weeks. What we should be aware of is that unregulated discriminatory traffic-management has the potential to affect almost all dimensions of Internet governance, leading to enormous concentration of power in the hands of private entities that are not framed by rule-of-law and due process principles. For this reason, y humble opinion is that NN should be one of the priorities of the Rio “meeting” in April. I truly hope that that people will realise that what is at stake is the choice between allowing Internet users to be active participants to the Internet or mere information recipients. All the best, Luca Luca Belli Doctorant en Droit PublicCERSA,Université Panthéon-AssasSorbonne University > Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:39:37 +0100 > To: carolina.rossini at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > From: jefsey at jefsey.com > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] ! Marco Civil vote posponed ! > > At 20:07 29/10/2013, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >The main "trouble" issue is net neutrality. We are in a very crucial > >moment and we can lose on that front. We need Brazilians in Brasilia, > >but it would be good to have material out there from you all > >supporting NN. Lets think about what can help. But telcos are massed > >in Brasilia right now.... > > > >http://tecnologia.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2013/10/29/camara-adia-mais-mais-uma-vez-a-votacao-do-marco-civil-da-internet.htm > > Louis is right, the terms "net" and "neutrality" are not defined. > Therefore, their concatenation in "net neutrality" might seem doubly > undefined and subjective. However, "neutral" means "indifferent to". > This logically makes "net neutrality" to mean "for the net (whatever > it may be) to be indifferent to". Now, there are the two points of > view of the user and of the provider, two entities that are > independent from the net (whatever it may be). Semantically, this > therefore means there are two "net neutrality" principles: > > 1. on the provider side: he should provide a service (whatever it may > be) that is independent from the kind of user. This takes care of the > disparities between customers and traffic levels. > 2. on the user side: he should receive a service (whatever it may be) > that is independent from the provider. This takes care of the > advantages to the "most favored partner" . > > Now, what is targeted is a fair commercial relation that both sides > can trust. The proposition of each provider and the competition among > providers to satisfy the users should solve most of the problem as > far as the two "net neutralities" can be openly compared. This is not > the case if: > > 1. the provider may provide a form of monopolistic (i.e. non > commercial) advantage (whatever the nature and degree) to partners or > to its own services. This is an abuse of a dominant position in its > delegated management of the user's catenet within the global interneting. > 2. the user is purposedly put at disadvantage in his choices by a > lack of information. This is an abuse of a trust in the delegated > management of the user's catenet within the global interneting. > > From the above, one sees that one can rephrase the whole issue from > an OpenUse point of view. An ISP is not actually someone who provides > you an internet link > that > he could manage to his advantage. This is someone you entrust with > the best management of your internet. In this case, net neutrality is > a part of his best effort, and net partiality is a breach of your trust. > > The interest of this approach is that it does not call for a special > complicate law and is open to adaptative subsidiary legislation. > > In most of the cases, the confusion we suffer from, as being the > users, is the one Louis has clarified a long ago: the internet is NOT > a network, but "a network of networks". It includes the network of > each user. We are not the users of an "internet": we intelligently > use (IUse) network tools to concatenate our personal network with the > rest of the networks of the world. ICANN, RIRs, Government, etc. do > not control in part the "internet network": they provide elements > (computer, lines, programs, hosts, rules, electric power, education, > etc.) we use to design, build, use and manage better our own personal > or corporate relational spaces within the digital international > networking space (InterNet). > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 05:36:54 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 19:36:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] The Value of Net Neutrality Was:Re:[bestbits] Marco Civil vote posponed ! In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <46EA7EC3-50A2-4D9E-9C93-FC5505AA86A6@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Luca, Thinking about agenda bashing for the May meeting (something suggested on another list), in Bali were heard Brazil say the norms and principles President Rousseff presented to the UN general assembly should be among the topics discussed. The 5th principle is * Neutrality of the network, guided only by technical and ethical criteria, rendering it inadmissible to restrict it for political, commercial, religious or any other purposes. In a high level meeting, with some stakeholders who might not be overly keen (to put it mildly) on any network neutrality discussion, all the same civil society pushing for agreement on some broad principles protecting net neutrality would be very much worthwhile. The principles the dynamic coalition's developed, plus other work, might form the basis for a discussion at the May meeting, with a view to a recommendation to form a working group (enhancing the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality) to develop the principles further. Taking this a bit further, a goal of the May meeting might be to establish a workplan to address the topics discussed there. For example an agenda built around President Rousseff's five norms/principles, plus ICANN and IANA reform, might see... A recommendation for a working group to refine principles on network neutrality. A working group to develop an institutional framework around the IANA function. A discussion on ICANN reform, but more of a watching brief; a process to monitor and report on the organization's progress responding to the processes established by the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) with a view to releasing it from all ties to a single govt., with parallel discussion about appropriate future oversight once the intent of the AoC achieved. A process established to develop broad human rights framework, perhaps building on what was described during the IGF session on surveillance as the "Swedish Model" (this might begin to address Rousseff's first principle "Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for human rights.") etc. Use the May meeting to set in motion a number of different activities, some with definite goals worthy of a working group (e.g. develop an institutional framework), others more general and open-ended. For process to carry such things forward there will be an IGF in Turkey early September, and an IGF in Brazil about 18 months later. May is also typically when the IGF agenda is decided, so that's a fit. Take the workplan a few months forward to September and the IGF in Turkey would be an opportunity check on progress and for further discussion to guide the work. IGF 2015 to report on completion of efforts. IGF pre-meetings and a couple of days of the main IGF agenda given over to carrying discussion forward from Brazil May. Hopefully strengthen the IGF, with a plan of work that leads to outcomes, that raises its profile and relevance, utilizing working groups with a definite goal, something we've long spoke about in civil society. Makes sure there is a firm multistakeholder foundation for Internet governance discussion. And overall recognizing we have to compromise at the beginning or we won't even get started. Adam On Nov 6, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Luca Belli wrote: > Dear all, > > As stressed by Louis, Network Neutrality is a thorny and multifaceted issue. > The NN debate is gaining great political momentum because it has obvious consequences on media (de)centralisation and therefore on media control. One of the points of rough consensus that clearly emerged during IGF workshop 340 “Network Neutrality: from Architecture to Norms” is that the protection of NN has direct consequences on the full enjoyment of end-users’ human rights, on media pluralism and on consumers’ rights. And these consequences are particularly amplified when Internet users are marginalised people who are not able to organise themselves and get their voice heard by policy-makers. > > The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DC NN) has elaborated a Report on “The Value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow” that aims at elucidating some of the facets of the NN debate, focusing particularly on human rights issues. The report is available here:http://nebula.wsimg.com/22eb364444f4e32abb876b9be835baf8?AccessKeyId=B45063449B96D27B8F85&disposition=0 > By all means, comments are more than welcome. > > Furthermore, the DC NN has developed a model framework on net neutrality, transposing the IETF standardisation process to NN policy-making (see the contribution on “A Discourse Principle Approach to Network Neutrality” in the DC NN report). The elaboration of the model framework was initiated and has been stimulated by the Council of Europe that stressed the need for a model framework on net neutrality since 2010 (see: art 9 of the CoE Committee of Ministers Declaration on Network Neutrality). The model has been developed entirely online by the DC NN through an open, transparent, inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach and is going to be communicated to the CoE Committee of Ministers in a couple of weeks. > > What we should be aware of is that unregulated discriminatory traffic-management has the potential to affect almost all dimensions of Internet governance, leading to enormous concentration of power in the hands of private entities that are not framed by rule-of-law and due process principles. For this reason, y humble opinion is that NN should be one of the priorities of the Rio “meeting” in April. > > I truly hope that that people will realise that what is at stake is the choice between allowing Internet users to be active participants to the Internet or mere information recipients. > > All the best, > > Luca > > Luca Belli > Doctorant en Droit Public > CERSA,Université Panthéon-Assas > Sorbonne University > > > > > Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:39:37 +0100 > > To: carolina.rossini at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > From: jefsey at jefsey.com > > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] ! Marco Civil vote posponed ! > > > > At 20:07 29/10/2013, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > >The main "trouble" issue is net neutrality. We are in a very crucial > > >moment and we can lose on that front. We need Brazilians in Brasilia, > > >but it would be good to have material out there from you all > > >supporting NN. Lets think about what can help. But telcos are massed > > >in Brasilia right now.... > > > > > >http://tecnologia.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2013/10/29/camara-adia-mais-mais-uma-vez-a-votacao-do-marco-civil-da-internet.htm > > > > Louis is right, the terms "net" and "neutrality" are not defined. > > Therefore, their concatenation in "net neutrality" might seem doubly > > undefined and subjective. However, "neutral" means "indifferent to". > > This logically makes "net neutrality" to mean "for the net (whatever > > it may be) to be indifferent to". Now, there are the two points of > > view of the user and of the provider, two entities that are > > independent from the net (whatever it may be). Semantically, this > > therefore means there are two "net neutrality" principles: > > > > 1. on the provider side: he should provide a service (whatever it may > > be) that is independent from the kind of user. This takes care of the > > disparities between customers and traffic levels. > > 2. on the user side: he should receive a service (whatever it may be) > > that is independent from the provider. This takes care of the > > advantages to the "most favored partner" . > > > > Now, what is targeted is a fair commercial relation that both sides > > can trust. The proposition of each provider and the competition among > > providers to satisfy the users should solve most of the problem as > > far as the two "net neutralities" can be openly compared. This is not > > the case if: > > > > 1. the provider may provide a form of monopolistic (i.e. non > > commercial) advantage (whatever the nature and degree) to partners or > > to its own services. This is an abuse of a dominant position in its > > delegated management of the user's catenet within the global interneting. > > 2. the user is purposedly put at disadvantage in his choices by a > > lack of information. This is an abuse of a trust in the delegated > > management of the user's catenet within the global interneting. > > > > From the above, one sees that one can rephrase the whole issue from > > an OpenUse point of view. An ISP is not actually someone who provides > > you an internet link > > that > > he could manage to his advantage. This is someone you entrust with > > the best management of your internet. In this case, net neutrality is > > a part of his best effort, and net partiality is a breach of your trust. > > > > The interest of this approach is that it does not call for a special > > complicate law and is open to adaptative subsidiary legislation. > > > > In most of the cases, the confusion we suffer from, as being the > > users, is the one Louis has clarified a long ago: the internet is NOT > > a network, but "a network of networks". It includes the network of > > each user. We are not the users of an "internet": we intelligently > > use (IUse) network tools to concatenate our personal network with the > > rest of the networks of the world. ICANN, RIRs, Government, etc. do > > not control in part the "internet network": they provide elements > > (computer, lines, programs, hosts, rules, electric power, education, > > etc.) we use to design, build, use and manage better our own personal > > or corporate relational spaces within the digital international > > networking space (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 joly at punkcast.com Wed Nov 6 06:01:34 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 06:01:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] The Value of Net Neutrality Was:Re:[bestbits] Marco Civil vote posponed ! In-Reply-To: <46EA7EC3-50A2-4D9E-9C93-FC5505AA86A6@glocom.ac.jp> References: <46EA7EC3-50A2-4D9E-9C93-FC5505AA86A6@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Tim Wu just posted this link on his fb http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so-the-internets-about-to-lose-its-net-neutrality/ "Net neutrality is a dead man walking." On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Luca, > > Thinking about agenda bashing for the May meeting (something suggested on another list), in Bali were heard Brazil say the norms and principles President Rousseff presented to the UN general assembly should be among the topics discussed. The 5th principle is > > * Neutrality of the network, guided only by technical and ethical criteria, rendering it inadmissible to restrict it for political, commercial, religious or any other purposes. > > In a high level meeting, with some stakeholders who might not be overly keen (to put it mildly) on any network neutrality discussion, all the same civil society pushing for agreement on some broad principles protecting net neutrality would be very much worthwhile. The principles the dynamic coalition's developed, plus other work, might form the basis for a discussion at the May meeting, with a view to a recommendation to form a working group (enhancing the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality) to develop the principles further. > > Taking this a bit further, a goal of the May meeting might be to establish a workplan to address the topics discussed there. For example an agenda built around President Rousseff's five norms/principles, plus ICANN and IANA reform, might see... > A recommendation for a working group to refine principles on network neutrality. > A working group to develop an institutional framework around the IANA function. > A discussion on ICANN reform, but more of a watching brief; a process to monitor and report on the organization's progress responding to the processes established by the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) with a view to releasing it from all ties to a single govt., with parallel discussion about appropriate future oversight once the intent of the AoC achieved. > A process established to develop broad human rights framework, perhaps building on what was described during the IGF session on surveillance as the "Swedish Model" (this might begin to address Rousseff's first principle "Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for human rights.") > etc. > > Use the May meeting to set in motion a number of different activities, some with definite goals worthy of a working group (e.g. develop an institutional framework), others more general and open-ended. > > For process to carry such things forward there will be an IGF in Turkey early September, and an IGF in Brazil about 18 months later. May is also typically when the IGF agenda is decided, so that's a fit. Take the workplan a few months forward to September and the IGF in Turkey would be an opportunity check on progress and for further discussion to guide the work. IGF 2015 to report on completion of efforts. IGF pre-meetings and a couple of days of the main IGF agenda given over to carrying discussion forward from Brazil May. > > Hopefully strengthen the IGF, with a plan of work that leads to outcomes, that raises its profile and relevance, utilizing working groups with a definite goal, something we've long spoke about in civil society. Makes sure there is a firm multistakeholder foundation for Internet governance discussion. > > And overall recognizing we have to compromise at the beginning or we won't even get started. > > Adam > > > On Nov 6, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Luca Belli wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> As stressed by Louis, Network Neutrality is a thorny and multifaceted issue. >> The NN debate is gaining great political momentum because it has obvious consequences on media (de)centralisation and therefore on media control. One of the points of rough consensus that clearly emerged during IGF workshop 340 “Network Neutrality: from Architecture to Norms” is that the protection of NN has direct consequences on the full enjoyment of end-users’ human rights, on media pluralism and on consumers’ rights. And these consequences are particularly amplified when Internet users are marginalised people who are not able to organise themselves and get their voice heard by policy-makers. >> >> The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DC NN) has elaborated a Report on “The Value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow” that aims at elucidating some of the facets of the NN debate, focusing particularly on human rights issues. The report is available here:http://nebula.wsimg.com/22eb364444f4e32abb876b9be835baf8?AccessKeyId=B45063449B96D27B8F85&disposition=0 >> By all means, comments are more than welcome. >> >> Furthermore, the DC NN has developed a model framework on net neutrality, transposing the IETF standardisation process to NN policy-making (see the contribution on “A Discourse Principle Approach to Network Neutrality” in the DC NN report). The elaboration of the model framework was initiated and has been stimulated by the Council of Europe that stressed the need for a model framework on net neutrality since 2010 (see: art 9 of the CoE Committee of Ministers Declaration on Network Neutrality). The model has been developed entirely online by the DC NN through an open, transparent, inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach and is going to be communicated to the CoE Committee of Ministers in a couple of weeks. >> >> What we should be aware of is that unregulated discriminatory traffic-management has the potential to affect almost all dimensions of Internet governance, leading to enormous concentration of power in the hands of private entities that are not framed by rule-of-law and due process principles. For this reason, y humble opinion is that NN should be one of the priorities of the Rio “meeting” in April. >> >> I truly hope that that people will realise that what is at stake is the choice between allowing Internet users to be active participants to the Internet or mere information recipients. >> >> All the best, >> >> Luca >> >> Luca Belli >> Doctorant en Droit Public >> CERSA,Université Panthéon-Assas >> Sorbonne University >> >> >> >> > Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:39:37 +0100 >> > To: carolina.rossini at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> > From: jefsey at jefsey.com >> > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] ! Marco Civil vote posponed ! >> > >> > At 20:07 29/10/2013, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> > >The main "trouble" issue is net neutrality. We are in a very crucial >> > >moment and we can lose on that front. We need Brazilians in Brasilia, >> > >but it would be good to have material out there from you all >> > >supporting NN. Lets think about what can help. But telcos are massed >> > >in Brasilia right now.... >> > > >> > >http://tecnologia.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2013/10/29/camara-adia-mais-mais-uma-vez-a-votacao-do-marco-civil-da-internet.htm >> > >> > Louis is right, the terms "net" and "neutrality" are not defined. >> > Therefore, their concatenation in "net neutrality" might seem doubly >> > undefined and subjective. However, "neutral" means "indifferent to". >> > This logically makes "net neutrality" to mean "for the net (whatever >> > it may be) to be indifferent to". Now, there are the two points of >> > view of the user and of the provider, two entities that are >> > independent from the net (whatever it may be). Semantically, this >> > therefore means there are two "net neutrality" principles: >> > >> > 1. on the provider side: he should provide a service (whatever it may >> > be) that is independent from the kind of user. This takes care of the >> > disparities between customers and traffic levels. >> > 2. on the user side: he should receive a service (whatever it may be) >> > that is independent from the provider. This takes care of the >> > advantages to the "most favored partner" . >> > >> > Now, what is targeted is a fair commercial relation that both sides >> > can trust. The proposition of each provider and the competition among >> > providers to satisfy the users should solve most of the problem as >> > far as the two "net neutralities" can be openly compared. This is not >> > the case if: >> > >> > 1. the provider may provide a form of monopolistic (i.e. non >> > commercial) advantage (whatever the nature and degree) to partners or >> > to its own services. This is an abuse of a dominant position in its >> > delegated management of the user's catenet within the global interneting. >> > 2. the user is purposedly put at disadvantage in his choices by a >> > lack of information. This is an abuse of a trust in the delegated >> > management of the user's catenet within the global interneting. >> > >> > From the above, one sees that one can rephrase the whole issue from >> > an OpenUse point of view. An ISP is not actually someone who provides >> > you an internet link >> > that >> > he could manage to his advantage. This is someone you entrust with >> > the best management of your internet. In this case, net neutrality is >> > a part of his best effort, and net partiality is a breach of your trust. >> > >> > The interest of this approach is that it does not call for a special >> > complicate law and is open to adaptative subsidiary legislation. >> > >> > In most of the cases, the confusion we suffer from, as being the >> > users, is the one Louis has clarified a long ago: the internet is NOT >> > a network, but "a network of networks". It includes the network of >> > each user. We are not the users of an "internet": we intelligently >> > use (IUse) network tools to concatenate our personal network with the >> > rest of the networks of the world. ICANN, RIRs, Government, etc. do >> > not control in part the "internet network": they provide elements >> > (computer, lines, programs, hosts, rules, electric power, education, >> > etc.) we use to design, build, use and manage better our own personal >> > or corporate relational spaces within the digital international >> > networking space (InterNet). >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 06:08:09 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 00:08:09 +1300 Subject: [governance] WGEC Meeting (Currently Underway) #WGEC Message-ID: <6DB33567-F582-4A98-88C0-C61B27171649@gmail.com> Dear All, Most of you are aware that the WGEC meeting is currently underway. You can follow the event via Twitter #WGEC The Transcripts are available in real time, see: http://streamtext.net/player?event=Day1 Samantha Dickinson is tweeting live, see @sgdickinson and you can pull the storyboard. There is a good discussion going on about enhanced cooperation. There is interesting discussion on whether the Chair's summary reflects the diversity of the input. 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 06:52:04 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 00:52:04 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: WGEC Meeting (Currently Underway) #WGEC In-Reply-To: <6DB33567-F582-4A98-88C0-C61B27171649@gmail.com> References: <6DB33567-F582-4A98-88C0-C61B27171649@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear All, Firstly, I would like to wish all the CS WGEC members best of luck in their meetings and deliberations. Here are some personal views. Noting para 19 of the Secretary General's 2011 on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues pertaining to the Internet, see: http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a66d77_en.pdf where it states that the Tunis Agenda "recognizes the need for enhanced cooperation in Internet Related international public policy making but not in the day to day operational and technical matters that do not have an impact on international public policy issues." Today as the WGEC continues its discussions, there is a notable shift. The global community appears to have mixed reactions with the Tunis Agenda and its relevance. The NRO facilitated a Workshop [No. 145] at the IGF recently on Enhanced Cooperation where civil society, technical community, private sector, intergovernmental representatives showed practical examples of enhanced cooperation. Suffice to say there are many practical examples of enhanced cooperation, we only need to dialogue with each other and across communities and constituencies to find out. Of greater concern to me is that civil society holistically as it funnels through appointments to the MAG, CSTD needs to coordinate a framework for selection. No person should arbitrarily decide the process of selection without discussion with the coalition of stakeholders within civil society. This framework should be tight and representatives to the MAG, CSTD should be held accountable to all not just their flavour of the month group. As we prepare to make an announcement soon for calls for NomCom volunteers for MAG selection, we will also revisit and make calls for noteworthy remarks of fantastic work done and/or issues that people may have with current MAG representatives from civil society. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Nov 7, 2013, at 12:08 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > Most of you are aware that the WGEC meeting is currently underway. You can follow the event via Twitter #WGEC > > The Transcripts are available in real time, see: http://streamtext.net/player?event=Day1 > > Samantha Dickinson is tweeting live, see @sgdickinson and you can pull the storyboard. There is a good discussion going on about enhanced cooperation. There is interesting discussion on whether the Chair's summary reflects the diversity of the input. > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 6 08:02:11 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 05:02:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> India hasn't explicitly repudiated that proposal. They (and specifically Mr. Sibal) have only gone on to support something that is diametrically opposite to it, and strongly reaffirmed India's commitment to multi stakeholderism. As for publicly repudiating a proposal - just a proposal mind you, not something actually signed or anything - made by one of their bureaucrats, why embarrass themselves by doing so, when it can be quietly buried and a much better proposal taken forward? Same end result, thank God. --srs (iPad) > On 06-Nov-2013, at 0:40, parminder wrote: > > >> On Tuesday 05 November 2013 07:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by India, > > Just for factual correction.... CIRP was never repudiated by India. the fact that they showed openness to engage with critical comments cannot be held against them. If they did engage, one is saying they have repudiated their earlier stand, if they hadnt engaged one would call them closed and inflexible... Damned if you do, damned if you dont. > > Essentially the same proposal is put forward by India in its WGEC response - without the name though, and with an improvement of separating the treatment of the 'oversight' issue which India now wants to be seen separately from the mandate of the body which deals with general public policy issues related to the Internet. So, the Indian proposal for a new body for the latter purpose is still fully current. > >> no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian bureaucrat. > > It was government of India proposal with clearance from the highest level, and all concerned ministries. Daily Mail, which has an overly conservative image even in UK, isnt the most authoritative source of Southern geo politics. > > >> And it never did have broad support or consensus that'd make it viable even if India had not repudiated it. > > Again, India never repudiated it. > > In any case, the main burden of my email is not that there is one view on the subject, but that we need to begin a structured discussion on the needed institutional frameworks. > > parminder > > > > > parminder > >> >> So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any comparison with the ICCP is thankfully, moot. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>>> On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in stone by the end the year. Well not the end of the year, say December 15. Whether by the coalition of the willing, or others. >>>> >>>> Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room have just 7 weeks to come up with something sensible. >>>> >>>> So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of 2014 (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary thing...) will accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op to ward of the wicked plenipot) >>>> >>>> Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching ICANN + IANA contract, per what we are hearing: zero >>>> >>>> Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan issues home of some coherence into existence: zero >>>> >>>> (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we could do worse than starting with blowing up OECD's ICCP and related processes to a global model in some mind meld with ICANN as a the sugar daddy/cash machine to fund and to offer prototypical msh processes for the borrowing...but has anyone advocated that or anything in particular else? Nope, didn't think so.) >>> >>> Lee, >>> >>> India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part, is basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great improvement over it, since the CIRP proposal outlines an organic link of the new proposed 'policy development body' with the IGF. In its latest submission to the WG on EC, India has sought separate treatment of oversight and other public policy issues, and therefore seem to indeed have removed the I* oversight part from the proposed CIRP - which makes it almost identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF linkage bonus. >>> >>> And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have given a specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD ICCP kind of global body, (2) deal with the internationalisation of oversight issue separately through a techno-political body with a very thin and clearly constrained role, and (3) globally accept and formally recognise the current distributed architecture of technical and logical infrastructure related policy making and implementation processes. >>> >>> In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians have listed two key objectives for the proposed summit - outlines of an global institutional framework, and some global Internet related principles. >>> >>> I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related public policy issues (which category has been called as 'orphan issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical operations. >>> >>> And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with some principles listed in Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point. >>> >>> We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil summit initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new non-gov stakeholders coalition, which also seeks to develop substantive positions. We need to get pro-active, and produce substantive positions towards the summit. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot matters? Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the last several decades, to realize what is really likely to happen there. Or not. >>>> >>>> Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like a classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is indeed the group hug/photo op. And a press release. >>>> >>>> If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents: >>>> >>>> forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page press release. >>>> >>>> Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this. >>>> >>>> Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down to say 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we should say it. >>>> >>>> Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate, attend, whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but remember if we are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: deal with it, and be very succinct. >>>> >>>> Lee >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Cake [dave at difference.com.au] >>>> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a large extent rushing things largely due to circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance). >>>>> >>>>> It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I feel very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses. There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was WCIT in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the Internet, and the final treaty that provoked so much rejection was really not that bad. Now we are told we have to get all scared again and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and the actual Internet governance institutions, but to deal with an extremely broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt the ITU. >>>> >>>> Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of nations like South Korea) who had become more inclined to multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the additional impetus of post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The Montevideo statement and outreach to Brazil etc seems to have been prompted by a strong feeling among the I* that the current political climate is worse than in 2010, or even in 2012. I can't say whether their impressions are correct, but it does seem likely that they would strongly reject the line of argument you are putting here. >>>> I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to fix ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in the IANA contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight for renegotiation, I would have thought. And good. >>>> >>>> >>>>> And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is nothing close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU into IG. Can we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is happening? >>>> >>>> Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders than I do, so if he says things are substantially worse since WCIT, I have no reason to doubt him either. >>>> >>>>> More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you always reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own? >>>> >>>> We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it as becoming urgent they started the process themselves. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or misrepresenting its processes. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), and a determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I just don't think we need to be driven by fear. >>>> >>>> Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but I'll cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you specifically, as of course you do have strong understanding of ICANNs processes, though you do still seem to see this through a somewhat ICANN-centric point of view, which I still think is likely to not be so useful a perspective ongoing. While an opportunity to discuss the IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc is welcome, that really doesn't seem to be the main focus of any of what the Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central role might have more to do with Fadi personally choosing to push the process along. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> David >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 09:22:01 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:22:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] EDRi publication on net neutrality Message-ID: <20131106152201.307b158f@quill> EDRi has just published a paper on net neutrality: http://www.edri.org/files/paper08_netneutrality.pdf 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Nov 6 11:17:18 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:17:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] EDRi publication on net neutrality In-Reply-To: <20131106152201.307b158f@quill> References: <20131106152201.307b158f@quill> Message-ID: At 15:22 06/11/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: >EDRi has just published a paper on net neutrality: >http://www.edri.org/files/paper08_netneutrality.pdf I am ready to pay $ 15/m more for an NSA proof internet service. The first question is what are the Internet networks we are talking about? One cannot otherwise technically define what a neutral internet is. The network of networks is not a monolith depending on the US, nor built on a geographical zones bases depending on Govs. It is built to permit best QoS resulting from separately managed versions of the existing internet space. Political net neutrality is a way to retain monopoly even when competittion makes technical net neutrality possible. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 11:53:54 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 08:53:54 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Why The Deep Web Has Washington Worried | TIME.com In-Reply-To: <20C7D1B2-B0E0-4D39-9854-CDF2AA1EC3EA@gmail.com> References: <20C7D1B2-B0E0-4D39-9854-CDF2AA1EC3EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <045601cedb10$c80cba00$58262e00$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 8:29 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Why The Deep Web Has Washington Worried | TIME.com http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/31/the-deep-web-has-washington-worried/ Why The Deep Web Has Washington Worried >From online drug bazaars to virtual currency tax shelters, the growing anonymous web has many corners of Washington concerned Washington has no idea what to make of the Dread Pirate Roberts. As Lev Grossman and I write in this week's cover story, the Dread Pirate Roberts allegedly ran the Silk Road, the world's most successful online drug bazaar, until the feds caught him earlier this month. His real name, according to a 39-page federal complaint against him, is Ross Ulbricht, 29. He supposedly took the pseudonym from a character in the movie and book, The Princess Bride. In the Silk Road, DPR, as his followers called him, created a business model for anyone wanting to sell illicit items online using free encryption software called Tor and the virtually anonymous crypto-currency Bitcoin. Though the feds have taken Silk Road offline, there are plenty of folks lining up to be the next Dread Pirate Roberts. Lev and I examine the greater implications of the Deep Web, the massive and growing anonymous area of the Internet. But from the perspective of lawmakers and law enforcement in Washington, Silk Road presents a double conundrum. It's a blueprint for criminals the world over at a time when FBI resources are stretched thin and political will to empower government snooping has cratered. And it has created a regulatory headache in figuring how to deal with whole new currencies, tax havens and virtual online markets. While Tor is used by everyone from law enforcement to Syrian dissidents to protect valuable information, it is a double-edged sword. Many experts warn that groups ranging from the Russian mafia to international drug cartels are looking closely at the lessons learned from the Silk Road. It took the FBI more than two years of investigative work to find Ulbricht. They don't have the resources to compete with Silicon Valley in hiring, or the tools-a long-hoped for modernization of the law governing online wiretapping is on ice in Congress thanks to Edward Snowden. ( Developing technology to fight the Deep Web, or the anonymous non-searchable web, "is not adequately funded-it's nowhere near adequately funded," says Marcus Thomas, former assistant director of the FBI's technology division and now on the advisory board Subsentio, which helps companies comply with online warranted wiretaps. "Historically it was well funded, but recently especially with sequestration, it's been hard hit. It's always been a difficult thing to build cost benefit analysis for. How much money should you spend building a technology you may not use for a year, if ever?" Chester Wisnieski, a senior information technology security adviser at Sophos, adds that the FBI doesn't have enough trained staff. "If you look at the FBI-how many agents do they have in cyber? Less than 200," he said. "There's been a very fast shift of traditional crimes moving online and don't have skilled agents to deal with it." The policy problem is compounded by Bitcoin, which represents another set of jurisdictional tangles for Washington. The Senate Homeland Security Committee, officials tell TIME, plans on holding hearings on Bitcoin within the month. The committee sent letters to nine federal agencies in July asking for their thoughts on Bitcoins and other virtual currencies in the hopes of developing a holistic approach to the so-called cryptocurrency that neither stifles the currency's potential nor enables criminals to abuse it. "As with all emerging technologies, the federal government must make sure that potential threats and risks are dealt with swiftly," Committee Chairman Tom Carper, a Delaware Democrat, and the committee's top Republican, Tom Coburn, wrote in the letters. "However, we must also ensure that rash or uninformed actions don't stifle a potentially valuable technology." Bitcoin can be a force for good. "We've grown used to the idea that virtual transactions should be tracked because they can be; whereas Bitcoin brings anonymity back into online commerce," says Sasha Meinrath, director of the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute. "It's amazing how scary this notion is to law enforcement. But I see it as akin to trade in gold, cash transactions, and barter: not something to be feared, but simply another useful tool for commerce." And yet, virtual currencies have a complex past. In recent years, Liberty Reserve and e-Gold both ran afoul of the law, mostly for money laundering. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement seized funds from the world's largest Bitcoin exchange, Mt. Gox, in May charging that the company was operating an unlicensed money transmitting service. Mt. Gox has since moved to put names to Bitcoin transfers and register with federal and state governments. There is about $2 billion Bitcoin in existence today. Authorities say Silk Road transactions amounted to $1.2 billion in Bitcoin. Indeed, regulators have already taken an active interest in Bitcoin. The Senate Finance Committee is looking at language to regulate virtual currencies its tax code overhaul. They're also considering giving the IRS more money to track virtual tax havens, Senate sources tell TIME. A Government Accountability Office report in June warned that virtual currencies like Bitcoin could be abused as tax havens. New York Financial Services Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky sent subpoenas to 22 Bitcoin businesses this summer saying it was considering new regulatory guidance on virtual currencies. "If virtual currencies remain a virtual Wild west for narcotraffickers and other criminals," he said announcing the subpoenas, "that would not only threaten our country's national security, but also the very existence of the virtual currency industry as a legitimate business enterprise." A Commodities Futures Trading Commissioner said his agency is looking into regulating Bitcoins as a commodity. And Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network put out guidance in March saying Bitcoin brokers would have to follow wire service regulations-a potentially onerous requirement as each wire service must register state by state. All of this means that no one is quite sure how to handle bitcoin: is it a currency? A bond? A commodity? Should dealers be regulated like wire services or brokers? Should profits be taxed as capital gains? Few in Washington have even begun to consider these questions, and yet given the rapid growth of Bitcoin, the Deep Web and websites like the Silk Road they will surely be forced to soon. Internet users are increasingly looking for anonymity as their preferences and personal information are tracked and traded like pork belly futures. For many, the Deep Web represents a haven from those prying eyes. But, as in real life, when there's anonymity, there are dark alleys where people will abuse it. In the physical world, should we choose it, we can live a cash-based anonymous existence. Should we be able to do so online, even if it means anyone can buy drugs, fake IDs or illicit weapons as well? These are the questions Washington must grapple with as it looks at how to regulate cyrpotcurrencies and police the Deep Web. Click here to join TIME for as little as $2.99 to read Lev Grossman and Jay Newton-Small's full cover story on the Deep Web. ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 08 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 7c5b007&post_id=20131106112903:89B722AC-4700-11E3-9B46-D48DB85B47C9 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Nov 6 12:25:54 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 22:55:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: WGEC Meeting (Currently Underway) #WGEC In-Reply-To: References: <6DB33567-F582-4A98-88C0-C61B27171649@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all, A lot of the discussion in the WGEC this morning seems to have been about whether a new mechanism is needed or whether existing mechanisms should be expanded and improved upon. The Internet Democracy Project believes that we might need a bit of both, though even new mechanisms should be issue-specific, rather than being umbrella mechanisms that deal with all kinds of topics. Neither the status quo nor a unitary solution but a decentralised democratic and multistakeholder model of global Internet governance is the way forward. In terms of where moving forward should then happen for different issues, we believe that much of the work of locating such venues has already been done in the context of the WSIS Action Lines, and rather than starting again from scratch, this work should now be built upon, and the Action Lines revived and reformed to make sure that their potential also bears fruit. Our ideas are outlined in this short paper: http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/ Any feedback and further ideas of course most welcome, including offlist. Best regards, Anja On 6 November 2013 17:22, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Firstly, I would like to wish all the CS WGEC members best of luck in > their meetings and deliberations. > > Here are some personal views. Noting para 19 of the Secretary General's > 2011 on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues pertaining to the > Internet, see: > http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a66d77_en.pdf where it > states that the Tunis Agenda "recognizes the need for enhanced cooperation > in Internet Related international public policy making but not in the day > to day operational and technical matters that do not have an impact on > international public policy issues." > > Today as the WGEC continues its discussions, there is a notable shift. The > global community appears to have mixed reactions with the Tunis Agenda and > its relevance. The NRO facilitated a Workshop [No. 145] at the IGF recently > on Enhanced Cooperation where civil society, technical community, private > sector, intergovernmental representatives showed practical examples of > enhanced cooperation. Suffice to say there are many practical examples of > enhanced cooperation, we only need to dialogue with each other and across > communities and constituencies to find out. > > Of greater concern to me is that civil society holistically as it funnels > through appointments to the MAG, CSTD needs to coordinate a framework for > selection. No person should arbitrarily decide the process of selection > without discussion with the coalition of stakeholders within civil society. > This framework should be tight and representatives to the MAG, CSTD should > be held accountable to all not just their flavour of the month group. As we > prepare to make an announcement soon for calls for NomCom volunteers for > MAG selection, we will also revisit and make calls for noteworthy remarks > of fantastic work done and/or issues that people may have with current MAG > representatives from civil society. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Nov 7, 2013, at 12:08 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear All, > > Most of you are aware that the WGEC meeting is currently underway. You can > follow the event via Twitter #WGEC > > The Transcripts are available in real time, see: > http://streamtext.net/player?event=Day1 > > Samantha Dickinson is tweeting live, see @sgdickinson and you can pull the > storyboard. There is a good discussion going on about enhanced cooperation. > There is interesting discussion on whether the Chair's summary reflects the > diversity of the input. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > Sent from my 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 > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Wed Nov 6 12:51:46 2013 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 15:51:46 -0200 Subject: [governance] two spacial invitations for ICANN MEETING In-Reply-To: Message-ID: To the WOMEN in this list: 1) DNS WOMEN BREAKFAST - will be at CATALINA room - Monday 18th - from 7:00AM till 8:30AM 2)LAC SPACE at ICANN MEETINGS - this will be our first event- Monday - SAN TELMO ROOM - from 10:30AM till NOOM. Focus on bringing more business to ICANN meetings. Join us! Best, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 On 06/11/13 09:01, "Joly MacFie" wrote: >Tim Wu just posted this link on his fb > >http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so-the-internets-about-to-lose-its-ne >t-neutrality/ > >"Net neutrality is a dead man walking." > >On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi Luca, >> >> Thinking about agenda bashing for the May meeting (something suggested >>on another list), in Bali were heard Brazil say the norms and principles >>President Rousseff presented to the UN general assembly should be among >>the topics discussed. The 5th principle is >> >> * Neutrality of the network, guided only by technical and ethical >>criteria, rendering it inadmissible to restrict it for political, >>commercial, religious or any other purposes. >> >> In a high level meeting, with some stakeholders who might not be overly >>keen (to put it mildly) on any network neutrality discussion, all the >>same civil society pushing for agreement on some broad principles >>protecting net neutrality would be very much worthwhile. The principles >>the dynamic coalition's developed, plus other work, might form the basis >>for a discussion at the May meeting, with a view to a recommendation to >>form a working group (enhancing the Dynamic Coalition on Network >>Neutrality) to develop the principles further. >> >> Taking this a bit further, a goal of the May meeting might be to >>establish a workplan to address the topics discussed there. For example >>an agenda built around President Rousseff's five norms/principles, plus >>ICANN and IANA reform, might see... >> A recommendation for a working group to refine principles on network >>neutrality. >> A working group to develop an institutional framework around the IANA >>function. >> A discussion on ICANN reform, but more of a watching brief; a process >>to monitor and report on the organization's progress responding to the >>processes established by the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) with a >>view to releasing it from all ties to a single govt., with parallel >>discussion about appropriate future oversight once the intent of the AoC >>achieved. >> A process established to develop broad human rights framework, perhaps >>building on what was described during the IGF session on surveillance as >>the "Swedish Model" (this might begin to address Rousseff's first >>principle "Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect >>for human rights.") >> etc. >> >> Use the May meeting to set in motion a number of different activities, >>some with definite goals worthy of a working group (e.g. develop an >>institutional framework), others more general and open-ended. >> >> For process to carry such things forward there will be an IGF in Turkey >>early September, and an IGF in Brazil about 18 months later. May is also >>typically when the IGF agenda is decided, so that's a fit. Take the >>workplan a few months forward to September and the IGF in Turkey would >>be an opportunity check on progress and for further discussion to guide >>the work. IGF 2015 to report on completion of efforts. IGF pre-meetings >>and a couple of days of the main IGF agenda given over to carrying >>discussion forward from Brazil May. >> >> Hopefully strengthen the IGF, with a plan of work that leads to >>outcomes, that raises its profile and relevance, utilizing working >>groups with a definite goal, something we've long spoke about in civil >>society. Makes sure there is a firm multistakeholder foundation for >>Internet governance discussion. >> >> And overall recognizing we have to compromise at the beginning or we >>won't even get started. >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Nov 6, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Luca Belli wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As stressed by Louis, Network Neutrality is a thorny and multifaceted >>>issue. >>> The NN debate is gaining great political momentum because it has >>>obvious consequences on media (de)centralisation and therefore on media >>>control. One of the points of rough consensus that clearly emerged >>>during IGF workshop 340 ³Network Neutrality: from Architecture to >>>Norms² is that the protection of NN has direct consequences on the full >>>enjoyment of end-users¹ human rights, on media pluralism and on >>>consumers¹ rights. And these consequences are particularly amplified >>>when Internet users are marginalised people who are not able to >>>organise themselves and get their voice heard by policy-makers. >>> >>> The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DC NN) has elaborated a >>>Report on ³The Value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of >>>Tomorrow² that aims at elucidating some of the facets of the NN debate, >>>focusing particularly on human rights issues. The report is available >>>here:http://nebula.wsimg.com/22eb364444f4e32abb876b9be835baf8?AccessKeyI >>>d=B45063449B96D27B8F85&disposition=0 >>> By all means, comments are more than welcome. >>> >>> Furthermore, the DC NN has developed a model framework on net >>>neutrality, transposing the IETF standardisation process to NN >>>policy-making (see the contribution on ³A Discourse Principle Approach >>>to Network Neutrality² in the DC NN report). The elaboration of the >>>model framework was initiated and has been stimulated by the Council of >>>Europe that stressed the need for a model framework on net neutrality >>>since 2010 (see: art 9 of the CoE Committee of Ministers Declaration on >>>Network Neutrality). The model has been developed entirely online by >>>the DC NN through an open, transparent, inclusive and multi-stakeholder >>>approach and is going to be communicated to the CoE Committee of >>>Ministers in a couple of weeks. >>> >>> What we should be aware of is that unregulated discriminatory >>>traffic-management has the potential to affect almost all dimensions of >>>Internet governance, leading to enormous concentration of power in the >>>hands of private entities that are not framed by rule-of-law and due >>>process principles. For this reason, y humble opinion is that NN should >>>be one of the priorities of the Rio ³meeting² in April. >>> >>> I truly hope that that people will realise that what is at stake is >>>the choice between allowing Internet users to be active participants to >>>the Internet or mere information recipients. >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Luca >>> >>> Luca Belli >>> Doctorant en Droit Public >>> CERSA,Université Panthéon-Assas >>> Sorbonne University >>> >>> >>> >>> > Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:39:37 +0100 >>> > To: carolina.rossini at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; >>>bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> > From: jefsey at jefsey.com >>> > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] ! Marco Civil vote posponed ! >>> > >>> > At 20:07 29/10/2013, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> > >The main "trouble" issue is net neutrality. We are in a very crucial >>> > >moment and we can lose on that front. We need Brazilians in >>>Brasilia, >>> > >but it would be good to have material out there from you all >>> > >supporting NN. Lets think about what can help. But telcos are massed >>> > >in Brasilia right now.... >>> > > >>> > >>>>http://tecnologia.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2013/10/29/camara-adia-ma >>>>is-mais-uma-vez-a-votacao-do-marco-civil-da-internet.htm >>> > >>> > Louis is right, the terms "net" and "neutrality" are not defined. >>> > Therefore, their concatenation in "net neutrality" might seem doubly >>> > undefined and subjective. However, "neutral" means "indifferent to". >>> > This logically makes "net neutrality" to mean "for the net (whatever >>> > it may be) to be indifferent to". Now, there are the two points of >>> > view of the user and of the provider, two entities that are >>> > independent from the net (whatever it may be). Semantically, this >>> > therefore means there are two "net neutrality" principles: >>> > >>> > 1. on the provider side: he should provide a service (whatever it may >>> > be) that is independent from the kind of user. This takes care of the >>> > disparities between customers and traffic levels. >>> > 2. on the user side: he should receive a service (whatever it may be) >>> > that is independent from the provider. This takes care of the >>> > advantages to the "most favored partner" . >>> > >>> > Now, what is targeted is a fair commercial relation that both sides >>> > can trust. The proposition of each provider and the competition among >>> > providers to satisfy the users should solve most of the problem as >>> > far as the two "net neutralities" can be openly compared. This is not >>> > the case if: >>> > >>> > 1. the provider may provide a form of monopolistic (i.e. non >>> > commercial) advantage (whatever the nature and degree) to partners or >>> > to its own services. This is an abuse of a dominant position in its >>> > delegated management of the user's catenet within the global >>>interneting. >>> > 2. the user is purposedly put at disadvantage in his choices by a >>> > lack of information. This is an abuse of a trust in the delegated >>> > management of the user's catenet within the global interneting. >>> > >>> > From the above, one sees that one can rephrase the whole issue from >>> > an OpenUse point of view. An ISP is not actually someone who provides >>> > you an internet link >>> > that >>> > he could manage to his advantage. This is someone you entrust with >>> > the best management of your internet. In this case, net neutrality is >>> > a part of his best effort, and net partiality is a breach of your >>>trust. >>> > >>> > The interest of this approach is that it does not call for a special >>> > complicate law and is open to adaptative subsidiary legislation. >>> > >>> > In most of the cases, the confusion we suffer from, as being the >>> > users, is the one Louis has clarified a long ago: the internet is NOT >>> > a network, but "a network of networks". It includes the network of >>> > each user. We are not the users of an "internet": we intelligently >>> > use (IUse) network tools to concatenate our personal network with the >>> > rest of the networks of the world. ICANN, RIRs, Government, etc. do >>> > not control in part the "internet network": they provide elements >>> > (computer, lines, programs, hosts, rules, electric power, education, >>> > etc.) we use to design, build, use and manage better our own personal >>> > or corporate relational spaces within the digital international >>> > networking space (InterNet). >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org >-------------------------------------------------------------- >- >_______________________________________________ >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 vanda at uol.com.br Wed Nov 6 12:59:13 2013 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 15:59:13 -0200 Subject: [governance] first LAC SPACE AT ICANN MEETINGS Message-ID: We invite you to special events for our region - ICANN Meeting - Buenos Aires - Sheraton Hotel: € DNS Forum - € FRIDAY ­ Nov. 15th From 11:30AM to 12:00 - link to all program: http://www.npoc.org/?p=2013dnsforum € LAC SPACE in ICANN Meetings € MONDAY ­ Nov. 18th - from 10:30AM to 12:00 - San Telmo Room € Program: € LAC Project STRATEGY € Organizations in LAC: LACNIC; LACTLD ; LACRALO , IGF , ISOC € LAC Project Space € Business Participation in ICANN € Vision business ccTLDs € Overview of new gTLDs € Questions & Answers - how to increase business participation in ICANN meetings € Business Cocktail - 7:00 PM ­ 9PM participants from the region will be invited. € Focus on business network. € DNS FORUM Breakfast € WEDNESDAY November 20 8:30 to 10:00 am Salon Catalina; € Program - Doing Business at ICANN meetings - for companies from LAC region. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 13:31:12 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 00:01:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> Message-ID: <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 06 November 2013 06:32 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > India hasn't explicitly repudiated that proposal. Which more or less goes against what you said in your earlier email. The following is a proposal that India distributed to the WGEC today, and I quote the relevant part "Thus there is a clear mandate for defining a mechanism for effective global Internet governance. The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources". Does it sound like CIRP? And I can assure that this is a well considered official position of government of India, with agreement of all the concerned ministries, and 'not the product of overzealousness of one bureaucrat or the other'. Here it is not the question of whether I agree with the above position or not, but to clear falsehoods being spread systematically about India's position. BTW, this is not very different from the position articulated by Brazilian President in here recent UN speech, and I quote... "The United Nations must play a leading role in the effort to regulate the conduct of States with regard to these technologies. For this reason, Brazil will present proposals for the establishment of a civilian multilateral framework for the governance and use of the Internet and to ensure the effective protection of data that travels through the web. We need to create multilateral mechanisms for the worldwide network that are capable of ensuring principles such as:........" Public policy development spaces are urgently needed at the global level, We need to ensure these are as open and participative as possible, and that civil society has a strong role in these spaces, and these are connected appropriately to the IGF, without making the manifestly anti-democratic demand that corporations, self selected civil society persons and such actually have an equal role as governments in decision making processes in terms of Internet related pubic policy making. Such a demand is no less unacceptable than a demand that pharma companies should have a veto over health policies at the global and national levels. > They (and specifically Mr. Sibal) have only gone on to support > something that is diametrically opposite to it, and strongly > reaffirmed India's commitment to multi stakeholderism. > > As for publicly repudiating a proposal - just a proposal mind you, not > something actually signed or anything - made by one of their > bureaucrats, why embarrass themselves by doing so, when it can be > quietly buried and a much better proposal taken forward? Another mis representation.... It was an official input made under the name of government of India, fully signed by all that it needed to be signed by... > > Same end result, thank God. The (end) result remains the quoted Indian position, re articulated today, as above..... parminder > > --srs (iPad) > > On 06-Nov-2013, at 0:40, parminder > wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday 05 November 2013 07:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by India, >> >> Just for factual correction.... CIRP was never repudiated by India. >> the fact that they showed openness to engage with critical comments >> cannot be held against them. If they did engage, one is saying they >> have repudiated their earlier stand, if they hadnt engaged one would >> call them closed and inflexible... Damned if you do, damned if you dont. >> >> Essentially the same proposal is put forward by India in its WGEC >> response - without the name though, and with an improvement of >> separating the treatment of the 'oversight' issue which India now >> wants to be seen separately from the mandate of the body which deals >> with general public policy issues related to the Internet. So, the >> Indian proposal for a new body for the latter purpose is still fully >> current. >> >>> no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian bureaucrat. >> >> It was government of India proposal with clearance from the highest >> level, and all concerned ministries. Daily Mail, which has an overly >> conservative image even in UK, isnt the most authoritative source of >> Southern geo politics. >> >> >>> And it never did have broad support or consensus that'd make it >>> viable even if India had not repudiated it. >> >> Again, India never repudiated it. >> >> In any case, the main burden of my email is not that there is one >> view on the subject, but that we need to begin a structured >> discussion on the needed institutional frameworks. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> parminder >> >>> >>> So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any comparison with the >>> ICCP is thankfully, moot. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder >> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in stone by >>>>> the end the year. Well not the end of the year, say December 15. >>>>> Whether by the coalition of the willing, or others. >>>>> >>>>> Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other >>>>> governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room >>>>> have just 7 weeks to come up with something sensible. >>>>> >>>>> So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of 2014 >>>>> (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary thing...) >>>>> will accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op >>>>> to ward of the wicked plenipot) >>>>> >>>>> Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching >>>>> ICANN + IANA contract, per what we are hearing: zero >>>>> >>>>> Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan >>>>> issues home of some coherence into existence: zero >>>>> >>>>> (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan >>>>> somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we could do worse >>>>> than starting with blowing up OECD's ICCP and related processes to >>>>> a global model in some mind meld with ICANN as a the sugar >>>>> daddy/cash machine to fund and to offer prototypical msh processes >>>>> for the borrowing...but has anyone advocated that or anything in >>>>> particular else? Nope, didn't think so.) >>>> >>>> Lee, >>>> >>>> India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part, is >>>> basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great improvement over >>>> it, since the CIRP proposal outlines an organic link of the new >>>> proposed 'policy development body' with the IGF. In its latest >>>> submission to the WG on EC, India has sought separate treatment of >>>> oversight and other public policy issues, and therefore seem to >>>> indeed have removed the I* oversight part from the proposed CIRP - >>>> which makes it almost identical to OECD's ICCP, plus the IGF >>>> linkage bonus. >>>> >>>> And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have given a >>>> specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD ICCP kind of >>>> global body, (2) deal with the internationalisation of oversight >>>> issue separately through a techno-political body with a very thin >>>> and clearly constrained role, and (3) globally accept and formally >>>> recognise the current distributed architecture of technical and >>>> logical infrastructure related policy making and implementation >>>> processes. >>>> >>>> In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians have >>>> listed two key objectives for the proposed summit - outlines of an >>>> global institutional framework, and some global Internet related >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional >>>> framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related >>>> public policy issues (which category has been called as 'orphan >>>> issues' in some recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of >>>> ICANN oversight, and (3) technical and logical structure policy >>>> development and day to day technical operations. >>>> >>>> And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with >>>> some principles listed in Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point. >>>> >>>> We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over >>>> procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil summit >>>> initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new non-gov >>>> stakeholders coalition, which also seeks to develop substantive >>>> positions. We need to get pro-active, and produce substantive >>>> positions towards the summit. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot >>>>> matters? Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or >>>>> Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the last several >>>>> decades, to realize what is really likely to happen there. Or not. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like a >>>>> classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is indeed >>>>> the group hug/photo op. And a press release. >>>>> >>>>> If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents: >>>>> >>>>> forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page >>>>> press release. >>>>> >>>>> Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this. >>>>> >>>>> Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down to >>>>> say 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we should >>>>> say it. >>>>> >>>>> Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate, attend, >>>>> whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but >>>>> remember if we are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: >>>>> deal with it, and be very succinct. >>>>> >>>>> Lee >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Cake >>>>> [dave at difference.com.au] >>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM >>>>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting >>>>> tomorrow lunchtime >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their >>>>>> primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led >>>>>> body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are >>>>>> forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in >>>>>> a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand >>>>>> as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no >>>>>> idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have >>>>>> buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort >>>>>> credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a >>>>>> large extent rushing things largely due to >>>>>> circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and >>>>>> basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of >>>>>> inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I >>>>>> feel very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally >>>>>> uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses. >>>>>> There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was >>>>>> WCIT in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the >>>>>> Internet, and the final treaty that provoked so much rejection >>>>>> was really not that bad. Now we are told we have to get all >>>>>> scared again and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing >>>>>> ICANN and the actual Internet governance institutions, but to >>>>>> deal with an extremely broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt >>>>>> the ITU. >>>>> >>>>> Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of >>>>> nations like South Korea) who had become more inclined to >>>>> multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the additional impetus of >>>>> post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The Montevideo statement and >>>>> outreach to Brazil etc seems to have been prompted by a strong >>>>> feeling among the I* that the current political climate is worse >>>>> than in 2010, or even in 2012. I can't say whether their >>>>> impressions are correct, but it does seem likely that they would >>>>> strongly reject the line of argument you are putting here. >>>>> I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to >>>>> fix ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in >>>>> the IANA contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN >>>>> oversight for renegotiation, I would have thought. And good. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government >>>>>> coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is >>>>>> nothing close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU >>>>>> into IG. Can we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is >>>>>> happening? >>>>> >>>>> Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders >>>>> than I do, so if he says things are substantially worse since >>>>> WCIT, I have no reason to doubt him either. >>>>> >>>>>> More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of >>>>>> letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you >>>>>> always reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own? >>>>> >>>>> We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a >>>>> little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge >>>>> spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it >>>>> as becoming urgent they started the process themselves. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed >>>>>> discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and >>>>>> should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in >>>>>> civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including >>>>>> Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions >>>>>> about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last >>>>>> few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN >>>>>> against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough >>>>>> valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic >>>>>> reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its >>>>>> leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or >>>>>> misrepresenting its processes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my >>>>>> messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to >>>>>> reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), >>>>>> and a determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's >>>>>> wonderful initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has >>>>>> done. I just don't think we need to be driven by fear. >>>>> >>>>> Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but >>>>> I'll cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you >>>>> specifically, as of course you do have strong understanding of >>>>> ICANNs processes, though you do still seem to see this through a >>>>> somewhat ICANN-centric point of view, which I still think is >>>>> likely to not be so useful a perspective ongoing. While an >>>>> opportunity to discuss the IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc >>>>> is welcome, that really doesn't seem to be the main focus of any >>>>> of what the Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central >>>>> role might have more to do with Fadi personally choosing to push >>>>> the process along. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> David >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joy at apc.org Wed Nov 6 13:52:41 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 07:52:41 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: WGEC Meeting (Currently Underway) #WGEC In-Reply-To: References: <6DB33567-F582-4A98-88C0-C61B27171649@gmail.com> Message-ID: <527A8FF9.9090603@apc.org> Hi Anja - just to say that I did refer to the ideas in this paper during the WGEC meeting this morning, though the quality of remote participation made indepth discussion problematic. Cheers Joy On 7/11/2013 6:25 a.m., Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > A lot of the discussion in the WGEC this morning seems to have been > about whether a new mechanism is needed or whether existing mechanisms > should be expanded and improved upon. > > The Internet Democracy Project believes that we might need a bit of > both, though even new mechanisms should be issue-specific, rather than > being umbrella mechanisms that deal with all kinds of topics. Neither > the status quo nor a unitary solution but a decentralised democratic > and multistakeholder model of global Internet governance is the way > forward. > > In terms of where moving forward should then happen for different > issues, we believe that much of the work of locating such venues has > already been done in the context of the WSIS Action Lines, and rather > than starting again from scratch, this work should now be built upon, > and the Action Lines revived and reformed to make sure that their > potential also bears fruit. > > Our ideas are outlined in this short paper: > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/ > > > Any feedback and further ideas of course most welcome, including offlist. > > Best regards, > Anja > > > > > > > On 6 November 2013 17:22, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > Dear All, > > Firstly, I would like to wish all the CS WGEC members best of luck > in their meetings and deliberations. > > Here are some personal views. Noting para 19 of the Secretary > General's 2011 on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues > pertaining to the Internet, > see: http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a66d77_en.pdf where > it states that the Tunis Agenda "recognizes the need for enhanced > cooperation in Internet Related international public policy making > but not in the day to day operational and technical matters that > do not have an impact on international public policy issues." > > Today as the WGEC continues its discussions, there is a notable > shift. The global community appears to have mixed reactions with > the Tunis Agenda and its relevance. The NRO facilitated a Workshop > [No. 145] at the IGF recently on Enhanced Cooperation where civil > society, technical community, private sector, intergovernmental > representatives showed practical examples of enhanced cooperation. > Suffice to say there are many practical examples of enhanced > cooperation, we only need to dialogue with each other and across > communities and constituencies to find out. > > Of greater concern to me is that civil society holistically as it > funnels through appointments to the MAG, CSTD needs to coordinate > a framework for selection. No person should arbitrarily decide the > process of selection without discussion with the coalition of > stakeholders within civil society. This framework should be tight > and representatives to the MAG, CSTD should be held accountable to > all not just their flavour of the month group. As we prepare to > make an announcement soon for calls for NomCom volunteers for MAG > selection, we will also revisit and make calls for noteworthy > remarks of fantastic work done and/or issues that people may have > with current MAG representatives from civil society. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Nov 7, 2013, at 12:08 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Most of you are aware that the WGEC meeting is currently >> underway. You can follow the event via Twitter #WGEC >> >> The Transcripts are available in real time, >> see: http://streamtext.net/player?event=Day1 >> >> Samantha Dickinson is tweeting live, see @sgdickinson and you can >> pull the storyboard. There is a good discussion going on about >> enhanced cooperation. There is interesting discussion on whether >> the Chair's summary reflects the diversity of the input. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> >> Sent from my 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 > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 14:12:10 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:12:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 06 November 2013 06:32 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > India hasn't explicitly repudiated that proposal. > > > Which more or less goes against what you said in your earlier email. > > The following is a proposal that India distributed to the WGEC today, and I > quote the relevant part > > "Thus there is a clear mandate for defining a mechanism for effective global > Internet governance. The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a > multilateral body for formulation of international internet-related public > policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant > inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity > within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. > Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on public > policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical > Internet resources". > > Does it sound like CIRP? yes, it's multilateral! > > And I can assure that this is a well considered official position of > government of India, with agreement of all the concerned ministries, and > 'not the product of overzealousness of one bureaucrat or the other'. > > Here it is not the question of whether I agree with the above position or > not, but to clear falsehoods being spread systematically about India's > position. BTW, this is not very different from the position articulated by > Brazilian President in here recent UN speech, and I quote... > > "The United Nations must play a leading role in the effort to regulate the > conduct of States with regard to these technologies. Which States are willing to give up sovereignty in order to be regulated by the UN in this regard? For this reason, Brazil > will present proposals for the establishment of a civilian multilateral > framework for the governance and use of the Internet and to ensure the > effective protection of data that travels through the web. We need to create > multilateral mechanisms for the worldwide network that are capable of > ensuring principles such as:........" > > > Public policy development spaces are urgently needed at the global level, We > need to ensure these are as open and participative as possible, and that > civil society has a strong role in these spaces, and these are connected > appropriately to the IGF, without making the manifestly anti-democratic > demand that corporations, self selected civil society persons and such > actually have an equal role as governments in decision making processes in > terms of Internet related pubic policy making. Such a demand is no less > unacceptable than a demand that pharma companies should have a veto over > health policies at the global and national levels. So what you are saying is that the RIR processes are unacceptable to you? After all they "make" public policy regarding Internet number resources and have a greater role than governments in making these policies (largely because most governments do not participate in these processes). People involved in these processes are mainly staff of corporations (even though they largely represent themselves), plus CS and others of course. -- 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 Wed Nov 6 14:20:50 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:20:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1422edc16c8.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Shooting it and burying it in the backyard versus giving it a state funeral so to speak --srs (htc one x) On 6 November 2013 10:31:12 AM parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 06 November 2013 06:32 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > India hasn't explicitly repudiated that proposal. > > Which more or less goes against what you said in your earlier email. > > The following is a proposal that India distributed to the WGEC today, and I > quote the relevant part > > "Thus there is a clear mandate for defining a mechanism for effective > global Internet governance. The UN General Assembly could embark on > creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international > internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all > stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international > organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as > identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop > globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the > coordination and management of critical Internet resources". > > Does it sound like CIRP? > > And I can assure that this is a well considered official position of > government of India, with agreement of all the concerned ministries, and > 'not the product of overzealousness of one bureaucrat or the other'. > > Here it is not the question of whether I agree with the above position or > not, but to clear falsehoods being spread systematically about India's > position. BTW, this is not very different from the position articulated by > Brazilian President in here recent UN speech, and I quote... > > "The United Nations must play a leading role in the effort to regulate the > conduct of States with regard to these technologies. For this reason, > Brazil will present proposals for the establishment of a civilian > multilateral framework for the governance and use of the Internet and to > ensure the effective protection of data that travels through the web. We > need to create multilateral mechanisms for the worldwide network that are > capable of ensuring principles such as:........" > > > Public policy development spaces are urgently needed at the global level, > We need to ensure these are as open and participative as possible, and that > civil society has a strong role in these spaces, and these are connected > appropriately to the IGF, without making the manifestly anti-democratic > demand that corporations, self selected civil society persons and such > actually have an equal role as governments in decision making processes in > terms of Internet related pubic policy making. Such a demand is no less > unacceptable than a demand that pharma companies should have a veto over > health policies at the global and national levels. > > > > They (and specifically Mr. Sibal) have only gone on to support something > that is diametrically opposite to it, and strongly reaffirmed India's > commitment to multi stakeholderism. > > > > As for publicly repudiating a proposal - just a proposal mind you, not > something actually signed or anything - made by one of their bureaucrats, > why embarrass themselves by doing so, when it can be quietly buried and a > much better proposal taken forward? > > Another mis representation.... It was an official input made under the name > of government of India, fully signed by all that it needed to be signed by... > > > > > > Same end result, thank God. > > The (end) result remains the quoted Indian position, re articulated today, > as above..... > > parminder > > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > > On 06-Nov-2013, at 0:40, parminder > wrote: > > > >> > >> On Tuesday 05 November 2013 07:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >>> But the CIRP proposal has been repudiated even by India, > >> > >> Just for factual correction.... CIRP was never repudiated by India. the > fact that they showed openness to engage with critical comments cannot be > held against them. If they did engage, one is saying they have repudiated > their earlier stand, if they hadnt engaged one would call them closed and > inflexible... Damned if you do, damned if you dont. > >> > >> Essentially the same proposal is put forward by India in its WGEC > response - without the name though, and with an improvement of separating > the treatment of the 'oversight' issue which India now wants to be seen > separately from the mandate of the body which deals with general public > policy issues related to the Internet. So, the Indian proposal for a new > body for the latter purpose is still fully current. > >> > >>> no matter that it was originally floated by an Indian bureaucrat. > >> > >> It was government of India proposal with clearance from the highest > level, and all concerned ministries. Daily Mail, which has an overly > conservative image even in UK, isnt the most authoritative source of > Southern geo politics. > >> > >> > >>> And it never did have broad support or consensus that'd make it >>> > viable even if India had not repudiated it. > >> > >> Again, India never repudiated it. > >> > >> In any case, the main burden of my email is not that there is one view > on the subject, but that we need to begin a structured discussion on the > needed institutional frameworks. > >> > >> parminder > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> parminder > >> > >>> > >>> So, pointing out the various inaccuracies in any comparison with the > ICCP is thankfully, moot. > >>> > >>> --srs (iPad) > >>> > >>> On 05-Nov-2013, at 4:14, parminder > wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:56 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in stone by > the end the year. Well not the end of the year, say December 15. Whether by > the coalition of the willing, or others. > >>>>> > >>>>> Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other > governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room have > just 7 weeks to come up with something sensible. > >>>>> > >>>>> So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of 2014 > (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary thing...) will > accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op to ward of the > wicked plenipot) > >>>>> > >>>>> Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching ICANN > + IANA contract, per what we are hearing: zero > >>>>> > >>>>> Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan > issues home of some coherence into existence: zero > >>>>> > >>>>> (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan >>>>> > somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we could do worse >>>>> than > starting with blowing up OECD's ICCP and related processes to >>>>> a > global model in some mind meld with ICANN as a the sugar >>>>> daddy/cash > machine to fund and to offer prototypical msh processes >>>>> for the > borrowing...but has anyone advocated that or anything in >>>>> particular > else? Nope, didn't think so.) > >>>> > >>>> Lee, > >>>> > >>>> India's CIRP proposal, if you take out the I* oversight part, is > basically OECD's ICCP structure; in fact a great improvement over it, since > the CIRP proposal outlines an organic link of the new proposed 'policy > development body' with the IGF. In its latest submission to the WG on EC, > India has sought separate treatment of oversight and other public policy > issues, and therefore seem to indeed have removed the I* oversight part > from the proposed CIRP - which makes it almost identical to OECD's ICCP, > plus the IGF linkage bonus. > >>>> > >>>> And of course IT for Change along with many other NGOs have given a > specific proposal to the WGEC to (1) develop an OECD ICCP kind of global > body, (2) deal with the internationalisation of oversight issue separately > through a techno-political body with a very thin and clearly constrained > role, and (3) globally accept and formally recognise the current > distributed architecture of technical and logical infrastructure related > policy making and implementation processes. > >>>> > >>>> In seeking some real movement forward on global IG, Brazilians have > listed two key objectives for the proposed summit - outlines of an global > institutional framework, and some global Internet related principles. > >>>> > >>>> I think IGC should initiative discussion on a global institutional > framework for IG, under three distinct heads (1) Internet related public > policy issues (which category has been called as 'orphan issues' in some > recent discussions), (2) internationalisation of ICANN oversight, and (3) > technical and logical structure policy development and day to day technical > operations. > >>>> > >>>> And another thread on key Internet principles, which can begin with > some principles listed in Dilma's UN speech as a good starting point. > >>>> > >>>> We, as in the global civil society, are still bogged down over > procedural issues - and being reactive - first to the Brazil summit > initiative, and then to the I* proposal for a new non-gov stakeholders > coalition, which also seeks to develop substantive positions. We need to > get pro-active, and produce substantive positions towards the summit. > >>>> > >>>> parminder > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot > matters? Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or Anthony > Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the last several decades, to > realize what is really likely to happen there. Or not. > >>>>> > >>>>> Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like a > classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is indeed the group > hug/photo op. And a press release. > >>>>> > >>>>> If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents: > >>>>> > >>>>> forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page > press release. > >>>>> > >>>>> Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this. > >>>>> > >>>>> Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down to say > 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we should say it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate, attend, > whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but remember > if we are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: deal with it, and > be very succinct. > >>>>> > >>>>> Lee > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Cake > [dave at difference.com.au] > >>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM > >>>>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller > >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting > tomorrow lunchtime > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their > >>>>>> primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led > >>>>>> body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are > >>>>>> forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in > >>>>>> a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand > >>>>>> as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no > >>>>>> idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have > >>>>>> buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort > >>>>>> credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a > >>>>>> large extent rushing things largely due to > >>>>>> circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and > >>>>>> basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of > inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I feel very > suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally uncritical support > for hasty and often ill-considered responses. There was a Plenipot in 2010. > The Internet survived. There was WCIT in 2012. There was no serious attempt > to take over the Internet, and the final treaty that provoked so much > rejection was really not that bad. Now we are told we have to get all > scared again and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and the > actual Internet governance institutions, but to deal with an extremely > broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt the ITU. > >>>>> > >>>>> Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of nations > like South Korea) who had become more inclined to multi-lateralism since > WCIT, with the additional impetus of post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The > Montevideo statement and outreach to Brazil etc seems to have been prompted > by a strong feeling among the I* that the current political climate is > worse than in 2010, or even in 2012. I can't say whether their impressions > are correct, but it does seem likely that they would strongly reject the > line of argument you are putting here. > >>>>> I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to > fix ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in the IANA > contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight for > renegotiation, I would have thought. And good. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government > coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is nothing close > to an international consensus on inserting the ITU into IG. Can we be a bit > more sober and realistic about what is happening? > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders than I > do, so if he says things are substantially worse since WCIT, I have no > reason to doubt him either. > >>>>> > >>>>>> More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of > letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you always > reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own? > >>>>> > >>>>> We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a little. > I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge spontaneously > post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it as becoming urgent they > started the process themselves. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed > >>>>>> discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and > >>>>>> should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in > >>>>>> civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including > >>>>>> Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions > >>>>>> about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last > >>>>>> few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN > >>>>>> against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough > >>>>>> valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic > >>>>>> reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its > >>>>>> leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or > >>>>>> misrepresenting its processes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my > messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to reform > ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), and a > determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful > initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I just don't > think we need to be driven by fear. > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but I'll > cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you specifically, as of > course you do have strong understanding of ICANNs processes, though you do > still seem to see this through a somewhat ICANN-centric point of view, > which I still think is likely to not be so useful a perspective ongoing. > While an opportunity to discuss the IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc > is welcome, that really doesn't seem to be the main focus of any of what > the Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central role might have > more to do with Fadi personally choosing to push the process along. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards > >>>>> > >>>>> David > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 14:24:46 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 00:54:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> On Thursday 07 November 2013 12:42 AM, McTim wrote: > > Which States are willing to give up sovereignty in order to be > regulated by the UN in this regard? Maybe the same countries that have heavily yielded on their sovereignty under WTO and WIPO frameworks, apart from scores of other global treaties... > > So what you are saying is that the RIR processes are unacceptable to > you? RIR processes are very acceptable to me, and I want them to remain untouched, and in fact be explicitly recognised under global frameworks, policies and law... > After all they "make" public policy regarding Internet number > resources I have always sought a distinction between making policies related to operational matters pertaining to the Internet, and substantive public polices related to the Internet. (Tunis agenda also makes this distinction.) Different institutional mechanisms and stakeholder roles are appropriate for these two kinds of policies... I again made this point in today's WGEC meeting, which point was echoed by Brazil, India and some others.. parminder > and have a greater role than governments in making these > policies (largely because most governments do not participate in these > processes). People involved in these processes are mainly staff of > corporations (even though they largely represent themselves), plus CS > and others of course. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 14:36:10 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:36:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:24 PM, parminder wrote: > I have always sought a distinction between making policies related to operational matters pertaining to the Internet, and substantive public polices related to the Internet. (Tunis agenda also makes this distinction.) > Different institutional mechanisms and stakeholder roles are appropriate for these two kinds of policies... Parminder - For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda? Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"? Thanks! /John Disclaimers: My views (and lack of knowledge) alone responsible for this email. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 14:47:33 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 01:17:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote: > > Parminder - > > For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda? John The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote "69. We further recognizethe need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues. " This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them. regards parminder > > Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet > substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"? > > Thanks! > /John > > Disclaimers: My views (and lack of knowledge) alone responsible for this email. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 15:03:02 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:03:02 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:47 PM, parminder wrote: > On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote: >> Parminder - >> >> For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda? > John > > The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote > > "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues. " > > This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them. Thanks for the reminder. So on the question of terminology - >> Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet >> substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"? these are "Internet _public policy_ issues", as opposed to "Internet policy development issues"... Are we all using the phrase "Internet public policy" consistently, when referring to matters of norms and customs on the Internet? (e.g. there are likely aspects of globalization of ICANN and IANA which pose Internet public policy issues, and others aspects which are operational matters) /John Disclaimers: My views alone. No public policy proposed in this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Nov 6 18:44:00 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 00:44:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 6 19:17:14 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 16:17:14 -0800 Subject: [governance] Video of IETF Plenary on Surveillance--With Bruce Schneier Message-ID: <00c301cedb4e$b6bdff00$2439fd00$@gmail.com> Three hour plenary on IETF and surveillance... culminating with a more or less unanimous `humming` through of the statement that the IETF has been ``under attack by the surveillance activities of the NSA``! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV71hhEpQ20 M -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 21:09:01 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:09:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] Google encrypts internal network Message-ID: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/googlers-say-f-you-to-nsa-company-encrypts-internal-network/ -- 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 Wed Nov 6 23:19:01 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:19:01 +1300 Subject: [governance] European Parliament Hearing on Surveillance #snowden #security #EU Message-ID: <781B135B-2B89-4428-8B5E-F65712CDD3F5@gmail.com> Dear All, The European Parliament will be holding a Surveillance Hearing where it will be considering a Study: National Programmes for Mass Surveillance of Personal Data in EU Member states and their compatibility with EU law. To see the Study, visit: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/libe/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=98290 To watch the Hearing tomorrow, visit: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20131107-0900-COMMITTEE-LIBE Kind Regards, Sala P.S (1)There are some useful things in the Study for those at the #WGEC and #IETF88 (2)McTim, I am happy that google is encrypting data as it passes between its Data Centers. It was also good to hear Schneier, Carpenter and the technical community discuss what it should do as a community. Thank you for the link to the video Michael. 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 anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Nov 7 02:31:17 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:01:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: WGEC Meeting (Currently Underway) #WGEC In-Reply-To: <527A8FF9.9090603@apc.org> References: <6DB33567-F582-4A98-88C0-C61B27171649@gmail.com> <527A8FF9.9090603@apc.org> Message-ID: That's great, Joy! I managed to follow the afternoon session through the transcript, but unfortunately missed the morning session. It's a real pity the quality of remote participation was so bad though, especially as I think you were perhaps the most vocal voice from civil society defending multistakeholderism. Otherwise it was the message of multilateralism that came through most strongly. Hope the quality of the remote participation will have dramatically improved today, so that the meeting can do full justice to your important inputs. Thanks and best regards, Anja On 7 November 2013 00:22, joy wrote: > Hi Anja - just to say that I did refer to the ideas in this paper during > the WGEC meeting this morning, though the quality of remote participation > made indepth discussion problematic. > Cheers > Joy > > On 7/11/2013 6:25 a.m., Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > A lot of the discussion in the WGEC this morning seems to have been about > whether a new mechanism is needed or whether existing mechanisms should be > expanded and improved upon. > > The Internet Democracy Project believes that we might need a bit of both, > though even new mechanisms should be issue-specific, rather than being > umbrella mechanisms that deal with all kinds of topics. Neither the status > quo nor a unitary solution but a decentralised democratic and > multistakeholder model of global Internet governance is the way forward. > > In terms of where moving forward should then happen for different issues, > we believe that much of the work of locating such venues has already been > done in the context of the WSIS Action Lines, and rather than starting > again from scratch, this work should now be built upon, and the Action > Lines revived and reformed to make sure that their potential also bears > fruit. > > Our ideas are outlined in this short paper: > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/ > > Any feedback and further ideas of course most welcome, including offlist. > > Best regards, > Anja > > > > > > > On 6 November 2013 17:22, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Firstly, I would like to wish all the CS WGEC members best of luck in >> their meetings and deliberations. >> >> Here are some personal views. Noting para 19 of the Secretary General's >> 2011 on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues pertaining to the >> Internet, see: >> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a66d77_en.pdf where it >> states that the Tunis Agenda "recognizes the need for enhanced cooperation >> in Internet Related international public policy making but not in the day >> to day operational and technical matters that do not have an impact on >> international public policy issues." >> >> Today as the WGEC continues its discussions, there is a notable shift. >> The global community appears to have mixed reactions with the Tunis Agenda >> and its relevance. The NRO facilitated a Workshop [No. 145] at the IGF >> recently on Enhanced Cooperation where civil society, technical community, >> private sector, intergovernmental representatives showed practical examples >> of enhanced cooperation. Suffice to say there are many practical examples >> of enhanced cooperation, we only need to dialogue with each other and >> across communities and constituencies to find out. >> >> Of greater concern to me is that civil society holistically as it >> funnels through appointments to the MAG, CSTD needs to coordinate a >> framework for selection. No person should arbitrarily decide the process of >> selection without discussion with the coalition of stakeholders within >> civil society. This framework should be tight and representatives to the >> MAG, CSTD should be held accountable to all not just their flavour of the >> month group. As we prepare to make an announcement soon for calls for >> NomCom volunteers for MAG selection, we will also revisit and make calls >> for noteworthy remarks of fantastic work done and/or issues that people may >> have with current MAG representatives from civil society. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Nov 7, 2013, at 12:08 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Most of you are aware that the WGEC meeting is currently underway. You >> can follow the event via Twitter #WGEC >> >> The Transcripts are available in real time, see: >> http://streamtext.net/player?event=Day1 >> >> Samantha Dickinson is tweeting live, see @sgdickinson and you can pull >> the storyboard. There is a good discussion going on about enhanced >> cooperation. There is interesting discussion on whether the Chair's summary >> reflects the diversity of the input. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> >> Sent from my 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 >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 7 03:13:06 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:13:06 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> Message-ID: Hi John, On Nov 7, 2013, at 5:03 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:47 PM, parminder wrote: > >> On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote: >>> Parminder - >>> >>> For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda? >>> >> John >> >> The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote >> >> "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues. " >> >> This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them. > I don't find paragraph 69 easy to read and understand, too many commas. But, I think paragraph 77 of the Tunis Agenda gives direction when it says, among other things, the IGF "would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet". We've had 8 years experience with IGF agendas and know what topics fall under its mandate, what is/is not day-to-day technical and operational matters. Clearly the I* etc. are not safe from these proposals. I think we can expect the current responsibilities of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Number Resource Organization (NRO), both policy coordination/development bodies, would be subsumed by this new "institutional solution" (UN body?). As would the IANA function, global address pool, etc. As would the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), which coordinates global ccTLD policy, etc, etc. I guess you'd still be able to hand out addresses on a day-to-day basis, but the RIRs' bottom-up policy development processes used to guide those allocations would in future likely be sent down from the new institution. Probably coordination of protocol development would come under the new institution: The IETF meeting taking place now in Vancouver would see representatives of the institution on stage, etc. Tunis Agenda suggests WSIS implementation shouldn't involve the creation of any new institutions, something that was also made clear soon after Tunis in discussions about the organization of the IGF. I guess that means this new "institutional solution" will be part of an existing entity. It will be UN, and in the UN family the ITU would stand out as being the competent agency. And somehow all this must be paid for. UN is slashing budgets, the ITU has no cash, so some global tax likely to be suggested (again.) Not good. Best, Adam > Thanks for the reminder. > > So on the question of terminology - >>> Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet >>> substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"? >>> > these are "Internet _public policy_ issues", as opposed to "Internet policy development issues"... > > Are we all using the phrase "Internet public policy" consistently, when referring to matters of > norms and customs on the Internet? (e.g. there are likely aspects of globalization of ICANN > and IANA which pose Internet public policy issues, and others aspects which are operational > matters) > > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. No public policy proposed in this email. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Thu Nov 7 03:49:19 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 09:49:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] MIPOC References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi, to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts. As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities). For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy". However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. MIPOC could be composed in a similar way like the WGEC and put on top of the IGF (and linked to the MAG). MIPOC could draw conclusions from the IGF discussions and clear what the right way would be to deal with issues which where raised by IGF plenaries or workshops. MIPOC would not take decisons but would recommend how and by whom the issues should be further discussed (and decided). MIPOC could send issues to IGOs, INGOs, technical organisations or a combination of those organisations (as an implementation of EC). Or it could - as IETF is doing - create in a bottom up open and transparent process a working group or a multistakeholder task force to move towards rough consensus. This has to be done on a case by case basis and only where needed, that is where a critical mass of stakeholders have identified an issue as a problem which needs a policy. wolfgang Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake Gesendet: Do 07.11.2013 09:13 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran Cc: parminder; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime Hi John, On Nov 7, 2013, at 5:03 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:47 PM, parminder wrote: > >> On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote: >>> Parminder - >>> >>> For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda? >>> >> John >> >> The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote >> >> "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues. " >> >> This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them. > I don't find paragraph 69 easy to read and understand, too many commas. But, I think paragraph 77 of the Tunis Agenda gives direction when it says, among other things, the IGF "would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet". We've had 8 years experience with IGF agendas and know what topics fall under its mandate, what is/is not day-to-day technical and operational matters. Clearly the I* etc. are not safe from these proposals. I think we can expect the current responsibilities of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Number Resource Organization (NRO), both policy coordination/development bodies, would be subsumed by this new "institutional solution" (UN body?). As would the IANA function, global address pool, etc. As would the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), which coordinates global ccTLD policy, etc, etc. I guess you'd still be able to hand out addresses on a day-to-day basis, but the RIRs' bottom-up policy development processes used to guide those allocations would in future likely be sent down from the new institution. Probably coordination of protocol development would come under the new institution: The IETF meeting taking place now in Vancouver would see representatives of the institution on stage, etc. Tunis Agenda suggests WSIS implementation shouldn't involve the creation of any new institutions, something that was also made clear soon after Tunis in discussions about the organization of the IGF. I guess that means this new "institutional solution" will be part of an existing entity. It will be UN, and in the UN family the ITU would stand out as being the competent agency. And somehow all this must be paid for. UN is slashing budgets, the ITU has no cash, so some global tax likely to be suggested (again.) Not good. Best, Adam > Thanks for the reminder. > > So on the question of terminology - >>> Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet >>> substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"? >>> > these are "Internet _public policy_ issues", as opposed to "Internet policy development issues"... > > Are we all using the phrase "Internet public policy" consistently, when referring to matters of > norms and customs on the Internet? (e.g. there are likely aspects of globalization of ICANN > and IANA which pose Internet public policy issues, and others aspects which are operational > matters) > > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. No public policy proposed in this email. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Thu Nov 7 05:19:06 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:19:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] MIPOC In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@ser ver1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <93939E4D-A3AE-4274-B1FA-12CF209A4CE5@uzh.ch> Hi Wolfgang On Nov 7, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Hi, > > to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts. As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities). > > For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy”. +1 > > However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. Sorry, but your acronym making machine may need a tune up. If it’s at the annual IGF, it should be Multistakeholder Yearly Organizing Policies for the Internet Council (MYOPIC). Cheers Bill > MIPOC could be composed in a similar way like the WGEC and put on top of the IGF (and linked to the MAG). MIPOC could draw conclusions from the IGF discussions and clear what the right way would be to deal with issues which where raised by IGF plenaries or workshops. MIPOC would not take decisons but would recommend how and by whom the issues should be further discussed (and decided). MIPOC could send issues to IGOs, INGOs, technical organisations or a combination of those organisations (as an implementation of EC). Or it could - as IETF is doing - create in a bottom up open and transparent process a working group or a multistakeholder task force to move towards rough consensus. This has to be done on a case by case basis and only where needed, that is where a critical mass of stakeholders have identified an issue as a problem which needs a policy. > > > wolfgang > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake > Gesendet: Do 07.11.2013 09:13 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran > Cc: parminder; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime > > Hi John, > > On Nov 7, 2013, at 5:03 AM, John Curran wrote: > >> On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:47 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote: >>>> Parminder - >>>> >>>> For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda? >>>> >>> John >>> >>> The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote >>> >>> "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues. " >>> >>> This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them. >> > > I don't find paragraph 69 easy to read and understand, too many commas. But, I think paragraph 77 of the Tunis Agenda gives direction when it says, among other things, the IGF "would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet". We've had 8 years experience with IGF agendas and know what topics fall under its mandate, what is/is not day-to-day technical and operational matters. Clearly the I* etc. are not safe from these proposals. > > I think we can expect the current responsibilities of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Number Resource Organization (NRO), both policy coordination/development bodies, would be subsumed by this new "institutional solution" (UN body?). As would the IANA function, global address pool, etc. As would the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), which coordinates global ccTLD policy, etc, etc. I guess you'd still be able to hand out addresses on a day-to-day basis, but the RIRs' bottom-up policy development processes used to guide those allocations would in future likely be sent down from the new institution. Probably coordination of protocol development would come under the new institution: The IETF meeting taking place now in Vancouver would see representatives of the institution on stage, etc. > > Tunis Agenda suggests WSIS implementation shouldn't involve the creation of any new institutions, something that was also made clear soon after Tunis in discussions about the organization of the IGF. I guess that means this new "institutional solution" will be part of an existing entity. It will be UN, and in the UN family the ITU would stand out as being the competent agency. > > And somehow all this must be paid for. UN is slashing budgets, the ITU has no cash, so some global tax likely to be suggested (again.) > > Not good. > > Best, > > Adam > > > >> Thanks for the reminder. >> >> So on the question of terminology - >>>> Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet >>>> substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"? >>>> >> these are "Internet _public policy_ issues", as opposed to "Internet policy development issues"... >> >> Are we all using the phrase "Internet public policy" consistently, when referring to matters of >> norms and customs on the Internet? (e.g. there are likely aspects of globalization of ICANN >> and IANA which pose Internet public policy issues, and others aspects which are operational >> matters) >> >> /John >> >> Disclaimers: My views alone. No public policy proposed in this email. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Nov 7 05:45:11 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:45:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi On Nov 6, 2013, at 8:47 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote: >> >> Parminder - >> >> For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda? > > John > > The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote > > "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues. " > > This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them. So those years of debate about enhanced cooperation => “oversight” of CIR organizations were just a dream? Wasn’t the CIRP supposed to be all about operationalizing enhanced cooperation? Didn’t the proposal say, "The CIRP shall be mandated to undertake the following tasks...Develop and establish international public policies with a view to ensuring coordination and coherence in cross-cutting Internet-related global issues; Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting…” Evolution is good, revisionism is not. 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 lucabelli at hotmail.it Thu Nov 7 05:58:24 2013 From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:58:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] The Value of Net Neutrality Was:Re:[bestbits] Marco Civil vote posponed ! In-Reply-To: <46EA7EC3-50A2-4D9E-9C93-FC5505AA86A6@glocom.ac.jp> References: , ,<46EA7EC3-50A2-4D9E-9C93-FC5505AA86A6@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Hi Adam, Knowing that President Rousseff has explicitly called for the creation of a “mechanisms for the worldwide network that are capable of ensuring principles such as […] the neutrality of the network” it seems essential to discuss net neutrality at the May meeting. >The principles the dynamic coalition's developed, plus other work, might form the basis for a >discussion at the May meeting, with a view to a recommendation to form a working group >(enhancing the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality) to develop the principles further. I agree that the creation of a specific working group could be a good idea in order to further develop the work of the DC NN. However, let me point out that the model framework (initiated by the Council of Europe and developed by the DC NN) is not a mere set of principles: it is rather a techno-legal standard aimed at providing an efficient solution to protect NN. In the same way as Internet standards aim at providing technical specifications that can be used to efficiently deal with a specific issue (e.g. SIP provides elements to efficiently deal with multimedia communication sessions), the aim of the model framework is to provide regulatory specifications to efficiently safeguard NN (see: http://networkneutrality.info/sources.html ) >Taking this a bit further, a goal of the May meeting might be to establish a workplan to address the >topics discussed there. For example an agenda built around President Rousseff's five >norms/principles, plus ICANN and IANA reform, might see... >A recommendation for a working group to refine principles on network neutrality. >A working group to develop an institutional framework around the IANA function. >A discussion on ICANN reform, but more of a watching brief; a process to monitor and report on the >organization's progress responding to the processes established by the Affirmation of Commitments >(AoC) with a view to releasing it from all ties to a single govt., with parallel discussion about >appropriate future oversight once the intent of the AoC achieved. >A process established to develop broad human rights framework, perhaps building on what was >described during the IGF session on surveillance as the "Swedish Model" (this might begin to >address Rousseff's first principle "Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for >human rights.") >etc. To me that looks like an excellent agenda! All the best, Luca Luca Belli Doctorant en Droit PublicCERSA,Université Panthéon-AssasSorbonne University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lucabelli at hotmail.it Thu Nov 7 06:01:39 2013 From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:01:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] The Value of Net Neutrality Was:Re:[bestbits] Marco Civil vote posponed ! In-Reply-To: References: , ,<46EA7EC3-50A2-4D9E-9C93-FC5505AA86A6@glocom.ac.jp>, Message-ID: Hi Joly, > Tim Wu just posted this link on his fb > > http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so-the-internets-about-to-lose-its-net-neutrality/ > > "Net neutrality is a dead man walking." That is probably the case in the U.S. but it does not mean that there is no hope elsewhere.. Best, Luca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 7 06:47:47 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:47:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] MIPOC In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@ser ver1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2E9D9BED-A41A-4C27-9D8A-4AD3E40E80A5@ciroap.org> On 7 Nov 2013, at 8:49 am, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. Note also the quite similar proposal that I put to the WGEC for a Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council, which would be established under the auspices of the IGF. The IGF in plenary session could discuss and agree by rough consensus to forward any proposal to the MIPC for its support. Those proposals could be initiated by IGF Dynamic Coalitions or (to be created) working groups, or by external bodies that hold Open Fora at the IGF, such as the OECD, Council of Europe, etc. This would require reform to the IGF so that its plenary sessions have a more deliberative capacity, and I can expand upon this as necessary, but since the main reform involved here is the new MIPC, I'm going to jump ahead and focus on that instead. The MIPC would be composed of equal numbers of self-selected representatives from each of the stakeholder groups (civil society, private sector, government), plus the cross-cutting technical and academic community constituency, and observers from intergovernmental organisations. They would meet both as a plenary body and as private caucuses for each stakeholder group/constituency. The purpose of the plenary meetings is to bring together points on which all the stakeholder groups can reach consensus, and the purpose of the caucus meetings is because each stakeholder group has its own preferred methods of negotiation and decision-making. A proposal can be sent back and forth between the plenary and the caucuses as many times as necessary to establish either that an overall rough consensus can be reached, or that it can't. For a proposal to be finalised as a recommendation of the IGF (note: not "of the MIPC"), the MIPC has to reach an overall rough consensus on it as assessed by the MIPC chair, which includes rough consensus within each stakeholder group as assessed by the caucus chair. The recommendations would be non-binding, though they could call for the development of binding rules where appropriate, which would generally be at the national level. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MIPC.png Type: image/png Size: 66096 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Nov 7 08:21:25 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:51:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] MIPOC In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Interesting proposal, Wolfgang, and also tying in to our own proposal to make the IGF a clearing house. By why not give this new function to the MAG, rather than setting up a separate body. After all, shouldn't what MIPOC discusses also feed into the IGF agenda quite substantively then? Best, Anja On 7 November 2013 14:19, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Hi, > > to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as > it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public > policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to > day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal > for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain > where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts. > As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new > gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new > gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day > operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly > politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security > protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there > is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and > collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes early > engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that > different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities). > > For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which > still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy". > > However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house > which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under > discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems > on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder > Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but > the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. > It does not discuss policy issues. > > MIPOC could be composed in a similar way like the WGEC and put on top of > the IGF (and linked to the MAG). MIPOC could draw conclusions from the IGF > discussions and clear what the right way would be to deal with issues which > where raised by IGF plenaries or workshops. MIPOC would not take decisons > but would recommend how and by whom the issues should be further discussed > (and decided). MIPOC could send issues to IGOs, INGOs, technical > organisations or a combination of those organisations (as an implementation > of EC). Or it could - as IETF is doing - create in a bottom up open and > transparent process a working group or a multistakeholder task force to > move towards rough consensus. This has to be done on a case by case basis > and only where needed, that is where a critical mass of stakeholders have > identified an issue as a problem which needs a policy. > > > wolfgang > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake > Gesendet: Do 07.11.2013 09:13 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran > Cc: parminder; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian; <, > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting > tomorrow lunchtime > > Hi John, > > On Nov 7, 2013, at 5:03 AM, John Curran wrote: > > > On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:47 PM, parminder wrote: > > > >> On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote: > >>> Parminder - > >>> > >>> For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda? > >>> > >> John > >> > >> The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote > >> > >> "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the > future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their > roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues > pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and > operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy > issues. " > >> > >> This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet > governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact > international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of > the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation > discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them. > > > > I don't find paragraph 69 easy to read and understand, too many commas. > But, I think paragraph 77 of the Tunis Agenda gives direction when it > says, among other things, the IGF "would have no involvement in day-to-day > or technical operations of the Internet". We've had 8 years experience > with IGF agendas and know what topics fall under its mandate, what is/is > not day-to-day technical and operational matters. Clearly the I* etc. are > not safe from these proposals. > > I think we can expect the current responsibilities of the Address > Supporting Organization (ASO) and Number Resource Organization (NRO), both > policy coordination/development bodies, would be subsumed by this new > "institutional solution" (UN body?). As would the IANA function, global > address pool, etc. As would the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation > (ccNSO), which coordinates global ccTLD policy, etc, etc. I guess you'd > still be able to hand out addresses on a day-to-day basis, but the RIRs' > bottom-up policy development processes used to guide those allocations > would in future likely be sent down from the new institution. Probably > coordination of protocol development would come under the new institution: > The IETF meeting taking place now in Vancouver would see representatives of > the institution on stage, etc. > > Tunis Agenda suggests WSIS implementation shouldn't involve the creation > of any new institutions, something that was also made clear soon after > Tunis in discussions about the organization of the IGF. I guess that means > this new "institutional solution" will be part of an existing entity. It > will be UN, and in the UN family the ITU would stand out as being the > competent agency. > > And somehow all this must be paid for. UN is slashing budgets, the ITU > has no cash, so some global tax likely to be suggested (again.) > > Not good. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > > Thanks for the reminder. > > > > So on the question of terminology - > >>> Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet > >>> substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"? > >>> > > these are "Internet _public policy_ issues", as opposed to "Internet > policy development issues"... > > > > Are we all using the phrase "Internet public policy" consistently, when > referring to matters of > > norms and customs on the Internet? (e.g. there are likely aspects of > globalization of ICANN > > and IANA which pose Internet public policy issues, and others aspects > which are operational > > matters) > > > > /John > > > > Disclaimers: My views alone. No public policy proposed in this email. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Nov 7 08:50:43 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:50:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: MIPOC In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> ,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A48B8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Wolfgang, working with you, in what was my 'B' scenario basically: Granting difficulty on drawing lines across multi-dimensional IG spaces, your alternative of setting up a select few Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council members who 'would not take decisions but would recommend how and by whom the issues should be further discussed (and decided)' seems both too limited and too inevitably politicized to point of stasis. I suggest. If we were to figuratively downgrade (for now) the 'council' on top of IGF to just 'IGF'...i.e. people working for IGF who review what all is going on, stay neutral, and make initial forays into areas for further inquiry by various interested IG parties. Meaning, think OECD staff positions, not Ministers making recommendations. The practice of governments seconding to OECD staff for exposure and experience, and to help out, could readily be further expanded for IGF, helping keep costs down and talent rotation up. The very few UN long-term staff engaged would only come in through the biz as usual process that led to Chengetai; who would have the responsibility of orchestrating which offers from cs, governments, and industry for assistance to accept. Plus of course if ICANN, I orgs, tech community, cs, ps, whomever, wishes to offer human resources to IGF, then Chengetai or whomever can sort out just as similar offers of assistance are channelled around IGF presently. This makes the UN-first folks happy, keeps the MSH model as only viable one for N-dimensional IG issues, and can be done on the cheap, without the guaranteed political infighting the oversight council approach might take. Comments? Lee PS: Wolfgang, perhaps what you meant to say, was that a Multistakeholder Internet Policy Advisory Council" (MIPOAC) would be set up by IGF to review - IGF processes and procedures on a regular basis, and report back to interested parties? ; ) (Meaning not above IGF, but below or alongside the evolving institution.) ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 3:49 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran Cc: parminder; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] MIPOC Hi, to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts. As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities). For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy". However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. MIPOC could be composed in a similar way like the WGEC and put on top of the IGF (and linked to the MAG). MIPOC could draw conclusions from the IGF discussions and clear what the right way would be to deal with issues which where raised by IGF plenaries or workshops. MIPOC would not take decisons but would recommend how and by whom the issues should be further discussed (and decided). MIPOC could send issues to IGOs, INGOs, technical organisations or a combination of those organisations (as an implementation of EC). Or it could - as IETF is doing - create in a bottom up open and transparent process a working group or a multistakeholder task force to move towards rough consensus. This has to be done on a case by case basis and only where needed, that is where a critical mass of stakeholders have identified an issue as a problem which needs a policy. wolfgang Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake Gesendet: Do 07.11.2013 09:13 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran Cc: parminder; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime Hi John, On Nov 7, 2013, at 5:03 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:47 PM, parminder wrote: > >> On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM, John Curran wrote: >>> Parminder - >>> >>> For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda? >>> >> John >> >> The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote >> >> "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues. " >> >> This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and such of the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced cooperation discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may emerge out of them. > I don't find paragraph 69 easy to read and understand, too many commas. But, I think paragraph 77 of the Tunis Agenda gives direction when it says, among other things, the IGF "would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet". We've had 8 years experience with IGF agendas and know what topics fall under its mandate, what is/is not day-to-day technical and operational matters. Clearly the I* etc. are not safe from these proposals. I think we can expect the current responsibilities of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Number Resource Organization (NRO), both policy coordination/development bodies, would be subsumed by this new "institutional solution" (UN body?). As would the IANA function, global address pool, etc. As would the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), which coordinates global ccTLD policy, etc, etc. I guess you'd still be able to hand out addresses on a day-to-day basis, but the RIRs' bottom-up policy development processes used to guide those allocations would in future likely be sent down from the new institution. Probably coordination of protocol development would come under the new institution: The IETF meeting taking place now in Vancouver would see representatives of the institution on stage, etc. Tunis Agenda suggests WSIS implementation shouldn't involve the creation of any new institutions, something that was also made clear soon after Tunis in discussions about the organization of the IGF. I guess that means this new "institutional solution" will be part of an existing entity. It will be UN, and in the UN family the ITU would stand out as being the competent agency. And somehow all this must be paid for. UN is slashing budgets, the ITU has no cash, so some global tax likely to be suggested (again.) Not good. Best, Adam > Thanks for the reminder. > > So on the question of terminology - >>> Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet >>> substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"? >>> > these are "Internet _public policy_ issues", as opposed to "Internet policy development issues"... > > Are we all using the phrase "Internet public policy" consistently, when referring to matters of > norms and customs on the Internet? (e.g. there are likely aspects of globalization of ICANN > and IANA which pose Internet public policy issues, and others aspects which are operational > matters) > > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. No public policy proposed in this email. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Thu Nov 7 09:15:06 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 15:15:06 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] MIPOC References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <2E9D9BED-A41A-4C27-9D8A-4AD3E40E80A5@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> thx. jeremy. yes i know your propsal and it has my full support. my point is to define tha mandate closer to a clearing-house. more comments later. btw, your proposal is also reflectedvin thecwgec quest. summary. lg w -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Gesendet: Do 07.11.2013 12:47 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: Adam Peake; John Curran; parminder; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian; bestbits Betreff: Re: [governance] MIPOC On 7 Nov 2013, at 8:49 am, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. Note also the quite similar proposal that I put to the WGEC for a Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council, which would be established under the auspices of the IGF. The IGF in plenary session could discuss and agree by rough consensus to forward any proposal to the MIPC for its support. Those proposals could be initiated by IGF Dynamic Coalitions or (to be created) working groups, or by external bodies that hold Open Fora at the IGF, such as the OECD, Council of Europe, etc. This would require reform to the IGF so that its plenary sessions have a more deliberative capacity, and I can expand upon this as necessary, but since the main reform involved here is the new MIPC, I'm going to jump ahead and focus on that instead. The MIPC would be composed of equal numbers of self-selected representatives from each of the stakeholder groups (civil society, private sector, government), plus the cross-cutting technical and academic community constituency, and observers from intergovernmental organisations. They would meet both as a plenary body and as private caucuses for each stakeholder group/constituency. The purpose of the plenary meetings is to bring together points on which all the stakeholder groups can reach consensus, and the purpose of the caucus meetings is because each stakeholder group has its own preferred methods of negotiation and decision-making. A proposal can be sent back and forth between the plenary and the caucuses as many times as necessary to establish either that an overall rough consensus can be reached, or that it can't. For a proposal to be finalised as a recommendation of the IGF (note: not "of the MIPC"), the MIPC has to reach an overall rough consensus on it as assessed by the MIPC chair, which includes rough consensus within each stakeholder group as assessed by the caucus chair. The recommendations would be non-binding, though they could call for the development of binding rules where appropriate, which would generally be at the national level. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 7 09:43:32 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:43:32 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MIPOC In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@ser ver1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <87913219-94F6-4521-8A9B-23B8A019E204@ciroap.org> On 7 Nov 2013, at 1:21 pm, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Interesting proposal, Wolfgang, and also tying in to our own proposal to make the IGF a clearing house. By why not give this new function to the MAG, rather than setting up a separate body. After all, shouldn't what MIPOC discusses also feed into the IGF agenda quite substantively then? Some would argue that the MAG is unable to work effectively, so unless it can be redeemed, it would be better to start afresh. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Nov 7 10:40:45 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 21:10:45 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MIPOC In-Reply-To: <87913219-94F6-4521-8A9B-23B8A019E204@ciroap.org> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <87913219-94F6-4521-8A9B-23B8A019E204@ciroap.org> Message-ID: The idea is to redeem it. And that would be required even in Wolfgang's proposal. There wouldn't be any point either in having another body on top of/besides an ineffective MAG if the MAG will actually be the body that supposedly has to translate into program recommendations of that other body. Either way, we need a MAG that works well. Anja On 7 November 2013 20:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 7 Nov 2013, at 1:21 pm, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Interesting proposal, Wolfgang, and also tying in to our own proposal to > make the IGF a clearing house. By why not give this new function to the > MAG, rather than setting up a separate body. After all, shouldn't what > MIPOC discusses also feed into the IGF agenda quite substantively then? > > > Some would argue that the MAG is unable to work effectively, so unless it > can be redeemed, it would be better to start afresh. > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers 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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Nov 7 12:05:23 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:05:23 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MIPOC In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <87913219-94F6-4521-8A9B-23B8A019E204@ciroap.org>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A49A8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Trying again to be helpful: (really!) So MAG has more staff support, including (mainly) donated as per the OECD template, whereby those staff positions are coveted enough that most get filled by 'seconded' labor, hardly anyone gets in on UN dime since org has so few, and has harder time supporting specific IG policy functions on a general budget line (versus spending more on refugees or WHO...or any number of other line items). Functions of MAG now that there is a bit of MSH staff back-up, extend to functions suggested by Wolfgang. Enhanced Cooperation Solved! : ) Lee ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Anja Kovacs [anja at internetdemocracy.in] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:40 AM To: Jeremy Malcolm Cc: IGC; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; Adam Peake; John Curran; parminder; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MIPOC The idea is to redeem it. And that would be required even in Wolfgang's proposal. There wouldn't be any point either in having another body on top of/besides an ineffective MAG if the MAG will actually be the body that supposedly has to translate into program recommendations of that other body. Either way, we need a MAG that works well. Anja On 7 November 2013 20:13, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: On 7 Nov 2013, at 1:21 pm, Anja Kovacs > wrote: Interesting proposal, Wolfgang, and also tying in to our own proposal to make the IGF a clearing house. By why not give this new function to the MAG, rather than setting up a separate body. After all, shouldn't what MIPOC discusses also feed into the IGF agenda quite substantively then? Some would argue that the MAG is unable to work effectively, so unless it can be redeemed, it would be better to start afresh. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Nov 7 13:11:51 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:11:51 -0500 Subject: Cost-recovery (was: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime) In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> Message-ID: On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:13 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > And somehow all this must be paid for. UN is slashing budgets, the ITU has no cash, so some global tax likely to be suggested (again.) Presently the critical Internet resource registries are paid for by those who directly make use of the registry services (in the case of DNS, registries and registrars; in the case of IP addresses, the RIRs collectively pay into ICANN; the IETF protocol parameters are seen as a nominal cost which is absorbed by the system.) If we're talking about additional mechanisms needed to keep the various infrastructure registries running, why wouldn't that be also borne by the direct registry "customers"? Or are you thinking about costs from additional mechanisms for discussing Internet public policy matters in general? /John Disclaimers: My views alone...(No discussion of additional costs or coverage of same has been held by the ARIN community or ARIN Board.) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 7 13:34:34 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:34:34 +0900 Subject: Cost-recovery (was: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime) In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> Message-ID: <40491DA4-8F89-4A17-AA97-BE7B42D504AF@glocom.ac.jp> On Nov 8, 2013, at 3:11 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:13 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> And somehow all this must be paid for. UN is slashing budgets, the ITU has no cash, so some global tax likely to be suggested (again.) > > Presently the critical Internet resource registries are paid for by > those who directly make use of the registry services (in the case of > DNS, registries and registrars; in the case of IP addresses, the RIRs > collectively pay into ICANN; the IETF protocol parameters are seen as > a nominal cost which is absorbed by the system.) > well the RFC editor function is hardly nominal. And someone from this new institutional arrangement will have to find that $1 million (or whatever it is now). Don't get me wrong. I think the proposals Parminder's suggesting are completely unworkable, have not been thought through, naive, serve only to promote the interests of a few governments, and no one else: certainly not civil society. Which is why when Parminder asked people a month or so ago to sign on to a statement promoting those ideas many of us said they were not supportable. That statement received no support on any of the lists civil society uses to coordinate participation in Internet policy discussions (not that the lists are representative of the whole of civil society.) > If we're talking about additional mechanisms needed to keep the various > infrastructure registries running, why wouldn't that be also borne by > the direct registry "customers"? Or are you thinking about costs from > additional mechanisms for discussing Internet public policy matters in > general? > Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think the proposal for these new mechanisms absolutely wrong. I tried to explain why. Adam > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone...(No discussion of additional costs or > coverage of same has been held by the ARIN community or ARIN Board.) > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 7 14:50:53 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:50:53 -0500 Subject: Cost-recovery (was: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime) In-Reply-To: <40491DA4-8F89-4A17-AA97-BE7B42D504AF@glocom.ac.jp> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <40491DA4-8F89-4A17-AA97-BE7B42D504AF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > On Nov 8, 2013, at 3:11 AM, John Curran wrote: > >> On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:13 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> And somehow all this must be paid for. UN is slashing budgets, the ITU has no cash, so some global tax likely to be suggested (again.) >> >> Presently the critical Internet resource registries are paid for by >> those who directly make use of the registry services (in the case of >> DNS, registries and registrars; in the case of IP addresses, the RIRs >> collectively pay into ICANN; the IETF protocol parameters are seen as >> a nominal cost which is absorbed by the system.) >> > > > well the RFC editor function is hardly nominal. And someone from this new institutional arrangement will have to find that $1 million (or whatever it is now). I think JC was referring to the Protocols and Parameters stuff that IANA keeps track of for the IETF. That is very low cost stuff. The RFC editor function isn't paid for by ICANN AFAIK. I had thought it was paid for by ISOC. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Nov 7 15:05:00 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 15:05:00 -0500 Subject: Cost-recovery (was: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime) In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <40491DA4-8F89-4A17-AA97-BE7B42D504AF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: On Nov 7, 2013, at 2:50 PM, McTim wrote: > I think JC was referring to the Protocols and Parameters stuff that > IANA keeps track of for the IETF. That is very low cost stuff. Correct. > The RFC editor function isn't paid for by ICANN AFAIK. I had thought > it was paid for by ISOC. It is paid for by ISOC; I believe that several of the RIRs (including ARIN) generally designate their ISOC membership contribution to this purpose... FYI, /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rpelletier at isoc.org Thu Nov 7 15:12:08 2013 From: rpelletier at isoc.org (Ray Pelletier) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:12:08 -0800 Subject: Cost-recovery (was: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime) In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <40491DA4-8F89-4A17-AA97-BE7B42D504AF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <3F4F3EC2-2309-4DA4-9BB8-E4F1F573B82D@isoc.org> On Nov 7, 2013, at 12:05 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Nov 7, 2013, at 2:50 PM, McTim wrote: > >> I think JC was referring to the Protocols and Parameters stuff that >> IANA keeps track of for the IETF. That is very low cost stuff. > > Correct. > >> The RFC editor function isn't paid for by ICANN AFAIK. I had thought >> it was paid for by ISOC. > > It is paid for by ISOC; I believe that several of the RIRs (including ARIN) > generally designate their ISOC membership contribution to this purpose... The RFC Editor services are paid for through the IETF Budget, which derives its revenues through Meeting Registration Fees, Sponsors and ISOC. RFCs are assets of the IETF Trust, and are copyrights of the IETF Trust and the document authors. Ray IETF Administrative Director Trustee, IETF Trust > > FYI, > /John > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Nov 7 15:22:50 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 15:22:50 -0500 Subject: Cost-recovery (was: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime) In-Reply-To: <3F4F3EC2-2309-4DA4-9BB8-E4F1F573B82D@isoc.org> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <40491DA4-8F89-4A17-AA97-BE7B42D504AF@glocom.ac.jp> <3F4F3EC2-2309-4DA4-9BB8-E4F1F573B82D@isoc.org> Message-ID: On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote: > > On Nov 7, 2013, at 12:05 PM, John Curran wrote: > >> On Nov 7, 2013, at 2:50 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>> I think JC was referring to the Protocols and Parameters stuff that >>> IANA keeps track of for the IETF. That is very low cost stuff. >> >> Correct. >> >>> The RFC editor function isn't paid for by ICANN AFAIK. I had thought >>> it was paid for by ISOC. >> >> It is paid for by ISOC; I believe that several of the RIRs (including ARIN) >> generally designate their ISOC membership contribution to this purpose... > > The RFC Editor services are paid for through the IETF Budget, which derives its revenues through Meeting Registration Fees, Sponsors and ISOC. RFCs are assets of the IETF Trust, and are copyrights of the IETF Trust and the document authors. Thanks Ray! Just for clarity - there are not any costs to IETF and/or ISOC for the IANA registry services provided by ICANN? /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rpelletier at isoc.org Thu Nov 7 15:36:55 2013 From: rpelletier at isoc.org (Ray Pelletier) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:36:55 -0800 Subject: Cost-recovery (was: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime) In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <40491DA4-8F89-4A17-AA97-BE7B42D504AF@glocom.ac.jp> <3F4F3EC2-2309-4DA4-9BB8-E4F1F573B82D@isoc.org> Message-ID: <076FA7FE-5A71-4F0F-A8FC-D3E6F14D188E@isoc.org> On Nov 7, 2013, at 12:22 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote: > >> >> On Nov 7, 2013, at 12:05 PM, John Curran wrote: >> >>> On Nov 7, 2013, at 2:50 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >>>> I think JC was referring to the Protocols and Parameters stuff that >>>> IANA keeps track of for the IETF. That is very low cost stuff. >>> >>> Correct. >>> >>>> The RFC editor function isn't paid for by ICANN AFAIK. I had thought >>>> it was paid for by ISOC. >>> >>> It is paid for by ISOC; I believe that several of the RIRs (including ARIN) >>> generally designate their ISOC membership contribution to this purpose... >> >> The RFC Editor services are paid for through the IETF Budget, which derives its revenues through Meeting Registration Fees, Sponsors and ISOC. RFCs are assets of the IETF Trust, and are copyrights of the IETF Trust and the document authors. > > Thanks Ray! Just for clarity - there are not any costs to IETF and/or > ISOC for the IANA registry services provided by ICANN? The IETF has an Agreement with ICANN regarding IANA services that is supplemented by annual SLAs, which can be found here: http://iaoc.ietf.org/contracts.html The IETF does not pay for services provided by ICANN for providing IANA services. Neither does ISOC. The contract and performance is overseen by the IETF Protocol Registries Oversight Committee, chaired by the IAB Chair. Ray > > /John > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 16:42:04 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:42:04 +1300 Subject: [governance] MIPOC - Developing a Policy House In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <2E9D9BED-A41A-4C27-9D8A-4AD3E40E80A5@ciroap. org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: I liked Wolfgang's idea of a Policy Clearing House and acknowledge Jeremy's concept and would like to add my personal views. The entire landscape, in terms of frequency of meetings needs to be rethought (not referring to ISOC/IETF, ICANN) but more along the lines of the IGF. Currently, the MAG as Programme designers merely assist the Secretariat in the design of the Layout of the IGF helping to ensure that there is a balance of issues. However, the Selection of topics is still subject to the "biases" of its members and often there is a danger of a tacit form of censorship occurring. This is not to say that the MAG has the right to accept, reject workshops so that it conforms to how they collectively think is acceptable for an IGF. The lack of inclusion of Intellectual Property Rights issues in the recent IGF is one notable example. The creation of a Clearing House should be to identify existing, current and emerging policy issues and categorise them. The policy categorisation by the WGIG was fantastic and needs to be constantly revised. The clearing house should have a limited role in my view and things developed in it should in no way be forced down to countries and local communities. Noting that countries and regions around the world are at different stages with regards to the IGFs, that is where on one hand you have the Caribbean which has had 9 IGFs longer than the global IGF and other countries just starting out, the bottom up process can be a challenge as there will always be works in progress. The Clearing house should be free to identify and categorise policy issues coming through both at the IGFs, trickling in from Regional and National IGFs and also those submitted to the clearing house. One of the foreseeable challenges will be in escalating the issues to appropriate foras such as IETF, ICANN, WIPO, WTO, ITU etc. There will be specific issues that are dependent on timelines and processes within these diverse contexts and as such effectively restrict any notion that the Clearing House nor the IGF would be a decision making body as its virtually impossible. I support the idea of a Clearing House. Sent from my iPad > On Nov 8, 2013, at 3:15 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > thx. jeremy. yes i know your propsal and it has my full support. my point is to define tha mandate closer to a clearing-house. more comments later. btw, your proposal is also reflectedvin thecwgec quest. summary. lg w > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > Gesendet: Do 07.11.2013 12:47 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Cc: Adam Peake; John Curran; parminder; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian; bestbits > Betreff: Re: [governance] MIPOC > >> On 7 Nov 2013, at 8:49 am, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >> However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. > > Note also the quite similar proposal that I put to the WGEC for a Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council, which would be established under the auspices of the IGF. The IGF in plenary session could discuss and agree by rough consensus to forward any proposal to the MIPC for its support. Those proposals could be initiated by IGF Dynamic Coalitions or (to be created) working groups, or by external bodies that hold Open Fora at the IGF, such as the OECD, Council of Europe, etc. > > This would require reform to the IGF so that its plenary sessions have a more deliberative capacity, and I can expand upon this as necessary, but since the main reform involved here is the new MIPC, I'm going to jump ahead and focus on that instead. > > The MIPC would be composed of equal numbers of self-selected representatives from each of the stakeholder groups (civil society, private sector, government), plus the cross-cutting technical and academic community constituency, and observers from intergovernmental organisations. They would meet both as a plenary body and as private caucuses for each stakeholder group/constituency. The purpose of the plenary meetings is to bring together points on which all the stakeholder groups can reach consensus, and the purpose of the caucus meetings is because each stakeholder group has its own preferred methods of negotiation and decision-making. A proposal can be sent back and forth between the plenary and the caucuses as many times as necessary to establish either that an overall rough consensus can be reached, or that it can't. > > For a proposal to be finalised as a recommendation of the IGF (note: not "of the MIPC"), the MIPC has to reach an overall rough consensus on it as assessed by the MIPC chair, which includes rough consensus within each stakeholder group as assessed by the caucus chair. The recommendations would be non-binding, though they could call for the development of binding rules where appropriate, which would generally be at the national level. > > -- > 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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 iza at anr.org Thu Nov 7 17:52:51 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:52:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here comes the MAG renewal message. I hope IGC will work on this quickly. izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chengetai Masango Date: 2013/11/7 Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal To: MAG List IGF Dear All, Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on the MAG renewal process for 2014. The hard deadline for the submission of names is *1 December 2013*. For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating the selection process would be appreciated. I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your respective stakeholder groups. Best regards, Chengetai _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org -- >> 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 18:12:52 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:12:52 +1300 Subject: [governance] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear IGC, Best bits, APC, Diplo, Internet Rights and Principles Coalition, I am not subscribed to other lists so have opted to list the coordinators of these lists instead. In light of the MAG renewal and selections, I would like to invite you to consider whether the idea for a joint NomCom where civil society can channel selections in a consolidated form. There should also be a consolidated framework of expected standards of behaviour and deliverables for MAG civil society representatives and in matters of accountability to the civil society at large. If it is too late to consider this for this round, it is still something that collectively civil society can communicate to UNDESA if there is consensus for this. This will ensure no "gaming" of systems and will demand accountability and encourage an open and transparent process. For the Business community, they are in consensus that the ICC is to facilitate the process. Whilst for civil society there is no consensus on a any single body to represent the selection process, I feel that it is something that should at least be discussed. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Nov 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Here comes the MAG renewal message. > > I hope IGC will work on this quickly. > > izumi > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Chengetai Masango > Date: 2013/11/7 > Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal > To: MAG List IGF > > > Dear All, > > Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on the MAG renewal process for 2014. The hard deadline for the submission of names is 1 December 2013. > > For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating the selection process would be appreciated. > > I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your respective stakeholder groups. > > Best regards, > > Chengetai > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Igfmaglist mailing list > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 18:25:58 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:25:58 +1300 Subject: [governance] MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 7days deadline Message-ID: Dear All Further to Izumi Aizu's message about generating names for the MAG by 1 December, 2013, this is an urgent call for both names of volunteers for those who wish to be considered for the following:- 1)NomCom to appoint MAG 2)Those who wish to be considered for selection for the MAG Please send in your expression of interest and clearly indicate it in the Subject line by stating either NomCom (MAG) or MAG Candidate For those wishing to be apply as MAG candidates, please send a brief about yourself, a link to your CV and describe involvement in existing, current IGF foras. Also list your possible conflicts of interest and declare any interests if any. Also describe why you think you will make a good MAG member and what value you can bring to the MAG and also to the IGC and broader civil society. Describe principles and values you ascribe to. This will help the NomCom in their selection process. Given the short time we have, the call for names is open 7 days and will be closed immediately after 7 days to give time to the NomCom to make their selection. This will mean that the NomCom can start work on the 25th November, 2013. Kind Regards, Sala > izumi > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Chengetai Masango > Date: 2013/11/7 > Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal > To: MAG List IGF > > > Dear All, > > Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on the MAG renewal process for 2014. The hard deadline for the submission of names is 1 December 2013. > > For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating the selection process would be appreciated. > > I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your respective stakeholder groups. > > Best regards, > > Chengetai > A separate NomCom mailing list will be created to faciltate the process. > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Chengetai Masango > Date: 2013/11/7 > Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal > To: MAG List IGF > > > Dear All, > > Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on the MAG renewal process for 2014. The hard deadline for the submission of names is 1 December 2013. > > For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating the selection process would be appreciated. > > I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your respective stakeholder groups. > > 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Thu Nov 7 18:39:27 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:39:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6880C16E-AF8C-4207-9D45-B8B7247D0E84@privaterra.org> who is rotating off? On 2013-11-07, at 5:52 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Here comes the MAG renewal message. > > I hope IGC will work on this quickly. > > izumi > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Chengetai Masango > Date: 2013/11/7 > Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal > To: MAG List IGF > > > Dear All, > > Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on the MAG renewal process for 2014. The hard deadline for the submission of names is 1 December 2013. > > For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating the selection process would be appreciated. > > I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your respective stakeholder groups. > > Best regards, > > Chengetai > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Igfmaglist mailing list > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Fri Nov 8 02:18:12 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 02:18:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Sala. If we are working for the common good of all, this is the way to go. Some Questions: 1. How easy is it for the consolidated CS to reach a consensus? 2. Do all CS groupings represent the same interests? Regards ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh On 7 November 2013 18:12, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear IGC, Best bits, APC, Diplo, Internet Rights and Principles Coalition, > > I am not subscribed to other lists so have opted to list the coordinators > of these lists instead. In light of the MAG renewal and selections, I would > like to invite you to consider whether the idea for a joint NomCom where > civil society can channel selections in a consolidated form. > > There should also be a consolidated framework of expected standards of > behaviour and deliverables for MAG civil society representatives and in > matters of accountability to the civil society at large. > > If it is too late to consider this for this round, it is still something > that collectively civil society can communicate to UNDESA if there is > consensus for this. This will ensure no "gaming" of systems and will demand > accountability and encourage an open and transparent process. > > For the Business community, they are in consensus that the ICC is to > facilitate the process. Whilst for civil society there is no consensus on a > any single body to represent the selection process, I feel that it is > something that should at least be discussed. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Nov 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Here comes the MAG renewal message. > > I hope IGC will work on this quickly. > > izumi > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Chengetai Masango > Date: 2013/11/7 > Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal > To: MAG List IGF > > > Dear All, > > Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on > the MAG renewal process for 2014. > The hard deadline for the submission of names is *1 December 2013*. > > For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder > group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating > the selection process would be appreciated. > > I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your > respective stakeholder groups. > > Best regards, > > Chengetai > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Igfmaglist mailing list > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 8 02:50:33 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 16:50:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 7days deadline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: happy to serve on a nomcom. no wish to be considered for selection. Adam On Nov 8, 2013, at 8:25 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All > > Further to Izumi Aizu's message about generating names for the MAG by 1 December, 2013, this is an urgent call for both names of volunteers for those who wish to be considered for the following:- > > 1)NomCom to appoint MAG > 2)Those who wish to be considered for selection for the MAG > > Please send in your expression of interest and clearly indicate it in the Subject line > by stating either NomCom (MAG) or MAG Candidate > > For those wishing to be apply as MAG candidates, please send a brief about yourself, a link to your CV and describe involvement in existing, current IGF foras. Also list your possible conflicts of interest and declare any interests if any. Also describe why you think you will make a good MAG member and what value you can bring to the MAG and also to the IGC and broader civil society. Describe principles and values you ascribe to. This will help the NomCom in their selection process. Given the short time we have, the call for names is open 7 days and will be closed immediately after 7 days to give time to the NomCom to make their selection. This will mean that the NomCom can start work on the 25th November, 2013. > > Kind Regards, > Sala >> izumi >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Chengetai Masango >> Date: 2013/11/7 >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal >> To: MAG List IGF >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on the MAG renewal process for 2014. The hard deadline for the submission of names is 1 December 2013. >> >> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating the selection process would be appreciated. >> >> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your respective stakeholder groups. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Chengetai >> > A separate NomCom mailing list will be created to faciltate the process. > >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Chengetai Masango >> Date: 2013/11/7 >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal >> To: MAG List IGF >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on the MAG renewal process for 2014. The hard deadline for the submission of names is 1 December 2013. >> >> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating the selection process would be appreciated. >> >> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your respective stakeholder groups. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Chengetai >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Nov 8 02:55:29 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 18:55:29 +1100 Subject: [governance] MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 7days deadline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7BB45D81905F4F6EA5FA8780FC8C31A1@Toshiba> also happy to serve on a nomcom From: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:25 AM To: IG Caucus Cc: IGC Coordinators Subject: [governance] MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 7days deadline Dear All Further to Izumi Aizu's message about generating names for the MAG by 1 December, 2013, this is an urgent call for both names of volunteers for those who wish to be considered for the following:- 1)NomCom to appoint MAG 2)Those who wish to be considered for selection for the MAG Please send in your expression of interest and clearly indicate it in the Subject line by stating either NomCom (MAG) or MAG Candidate For those wishing to be apply as MAG candidates, please send a brief about yourself, a link to your CV and describe involvement in existing, current IGF foras. Also list your possible conflicts of interest and declare any interests if any. Also describe why you think you will make a good MAG member and what value you can bring to the MAG and also to the IGC and broader civil society. Describe principles and values you ascribe to. This will help the NomCom in their selection process. Given the short time we have, the call for names is open 7 days and will be closed immediately after 7 days to give time to the NomCom to make their selection. This will mean that the NomCom can start work on the 25th November, 2013. Kind Regards, Sala izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chengetai Masango Date: 2013/11/7 Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal To: MAG List IGF Dear All, Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on the MAG renewal process for 2014. The hard deadline for the submission of names is 1 December 2013. For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating the selection process would be appreciated. I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your respective stakeholder groups. Best regards, Chengetai A separate NomCom mailing list will be created to faciltate the process. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chengetai Masango Date: 2013/11/7 Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal To: MAG List IGF Dear All, Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on the MAG renewal process for 2014. The hard deadline for the submission of names is 1 December 2013. For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating the selection process would be appreciated. I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your respective stakeholder groups. Best regards, Chengetai -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 8 02:57:36 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 16:57:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 7days deadline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Text of Wu Hongbo's letter about renewal below. Current MAG members can re-submit. Is a little unclear, does it mean they must re-submit, and if they don't will be assumed not interested? Adam MAG Renewal 2014 The Internet Governance Forum's Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) has been instrumental in planning the programme of the annual IGF meetings. We would like to express our gratitude to all past and present members of MAG who have donated their time, effort and valuable guidance in ensuring the smooth running of the IGF. On behalf of the United Nations Secretary-General, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) requests nominations from all stakeholder groups, according to the established principles and practices of MAG on the rotation and selection of its members. Governments, the private sector, civil society, and technical community should submit names of candidates from developed and developing countries as well as from economies in transition. Successful nominees will become part of MAG for a period of one year and will contribute to the multi-stakeholder consultation process, bringing the perspectives of their respective groups on Internet governance. Group nominees should be members who have actively participated in IGF meetings and activities in the past. As in previous years, stakeholder groups can resubmit the names of current MAG members for re-election and are expected to publicize the selection and nomination process. Please submit the names of nominees to the IGF Secretariat by 1 December 2013 via email:magrenewal2014 at intgovforum.org, using the attached submission template. The aim is to rotate one third of MAG members. Selection and Operation Principles: (i) MAG members are selected to achieve a balance among all stakeholder groups, while retaining regional and gender representation, according to established procedures; (ii) All MAG members serve in their personal capacity but are expected to have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups; (iii) The main task of MAG is to provide advice on the programme and main themes of the next meeting of the IGF; (iv) MAG members are expected to attend two to three MAG meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, in addition to the annual IGF meeting. They should participate actively in the preparatory process throughout the year, through engagement in the online multilateral dialogue among MAG members; (v) MAG meetings are open to Intergovernmental organizations. Thank you and I look forward to the continued success of the Internet Governance Forum. On Nov 8, 2013, at 8:25 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All > > Further to Izumi Aizu's message about generating names for the MAG by 1 December, 2013, this is an urgent call for both names of volunteers for those who wish to be considered for the following:- > > 1)NomCom to appoint MAG > 2)Those who wish to be considered for selection for the MAG > > Please send in your expression of interest and clearly indicate it in the Subject line > by stating either NomCom (MAG) or MAG Candidate > > For those wishing to be apply as MAG candidates, please send a brief about yourself, a link to your CV and describe involvement in existing, current IGF foras. Also list your possible conflicts of interest and declare any interests if any. Also describe why you think you will make a good MAG member and what value you can bring to the MAG and also to the IGC and broader civil society. Describe principles and values you ascribe to. This will help the NomCom in their selection process. Given the short time we have, the call for names is open 7 days and will be closed immediately after 7 days to give time to the NomCom to make their selection. This will mean that the NomCom can start work on the 25th November, 2013. > > Kind Regards, > Sala >> izumi >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Chengetai Masango >> Date: 2013/11/7 >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal >> To: MAG List IGF >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on the MAG renewal process for 2014. The hard deadline for the submission of names is 1 December 2013. >> >> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating the selection process would be appreciated. >> >> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your respective stakeholder groups. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Chengetai >> > A separate NomCom mailing list will be created to faciltate the process. > >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Chengetai Masango >> Date: 2013/11/7 >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal >> To: MAG List IGF >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on the MAG renewal process for 2014. The hard deadline for the submission of names is 1 December 2013. >> >> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating the selection process would be appreciated. >> >> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your respective stakeholder groups. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Chengetai >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Fri Nov 8 03:13:45 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 21:13:45 +1300 Subject: [governance] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Kivuva wrote: > +1 Sala. If we are working for the common good of all, this is the way to > go. > > Some Questions: > 1. How easy is it for the consolidated CS to reach a consensus? > [Sala: This is a very good question. The reality is that no civil society organisation can purport to represent the views of all civil society. However the critical thing to note is that in this instance this is not asking for consensus of views on substantive policy matters but are more to do with administrative matters pertaining to selection of civil society representatives. I am not sure how open they will feel about consensus amongst civil society organisations on fielding names for committees such as the MAG etc. But it's worth a shot. ] > 2. Do all CS groupings represent the same interests? > > [Sala: They clearly don't and would be governed by their respective articles or objectives as we are governed by the Charter, However, because we share more common features than other stakeholder groups, it makes sense to have cohesive collaborative framework for things like:- 1) MS Selection processes; 2)Joint Initiatives - Advocacy on mutual issues and priority areas Regards > > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva > twitter.com/lordmwesh > google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh > > > On 7 November 2013 18:12, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear IGC, Best bits, APC, Diplo, Internet Rights and Principles >> Coalition, >> >> I am not subscribed to other lists so have opted to list the coordinators >> of these lists instead. In light of the MAG renewal and selections, I would >> like to invite you to consider whether the idea for a joint NomCom where >> civil society can channel selections in a consolidated form. >> >> There should also be a consolidated framework of expected standards of >> behaviour and deliverables for MAG civil society representatives and in >> matters of accountability to the civil society at large. >> >> If it is too late to consider this for this round, it is still something >> that collectively civil society can communicate to UNDESA if there is >> consensus for this. This will ensure no "gaming" of systems and will demand >> accountability and encourage an open and transparent process. >> >> For the Business community, they are in consensus that the ICC is to >> facilitate the process. Whilst for civil society there is no consensus on a >> any single body to represent the selection process, I feel that it is >> something that should at least be discussed. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Nov 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> Here comes the MAG renewal message. >> >> I hope IGC will work on this quickly. >> >> izumi >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Chengetai Masango >> Date: 2013/11/7 >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal >> To: MAG List IGF >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement >> on the MAG renewal process for 2014. >> The hard deadline for the submission of names is *1 December 2013*. >> >> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder >> group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating >> the selection process would be appreciated. >> >> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your >> respective stakeholder groups. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Chengetai >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Igfmaglist mailing list >> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org >> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> www.anr.org >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Fri Nov 8 04:38:26 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 04:38:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Bali and Beyond: An Internet Governance Forum Debrief #igf @isocdc Message-ID: Another event from ISOC-DC - this one could be a great timesaver, as rather than plough through hours of IGF archives, wade through pages of email back and fro - this will provide a cohesive insight into what went down in Bali, and what it all means .. For those outside the US note that time may have changed from last week as our clocks were turned back last weekend. joly posted: "Today, Friday November 8 2013 at 9am EDT the Internet Society Washington DC Chapter will present a forum - Bali and Beyond: An Internet Governance Forum Debrief - at the Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center, Washington, DC. Late last month, more than " [image: Bali and Beyond]Today, Friday November 8 2013 at 9am EDT the Internet Society Washington DC Chapter will present a forum - Bali and Beyond: An Internet Governance Forum Debrief- at the Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center, Washington, DC. Late last month, more than a thousand delegates from almost a hundred countries gathered for four days at the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali, Indonesia, to discuss a wide range of issues related to the future of the Internet–from online privacy to management of domain names to NSA surveillance to human rights in cyberspace. Much of the discussion in Bali revolved around a proposal by ICANN and the Brazilian government to hold a high-level conference on Internet issues in Brazil in late April or early May. At today's event more than a dozen IGF participants will share their observations and experiences and participate in a public forum. It will be webcast live via the Internet Society Chapters Channel . *What*: Bali and Beyond: An Internet Governance Forum Debrief *Where*: Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center, Washington, DC *When*: Friday November 8 2013 at 9-10.30am EDT | 1400-1530 UTC *Agenda*: http://www.isoc-dc.org/2013/11/bali-and-beyond-an-internet-governance-forum-debrief/ *Webcast*: http://www.livestream.com/internetsocietychapters *Twitter*: #isocdc | #igf Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6075 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 8 05:02:05 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 23:02:05 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC Meeting Minutes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Apologies for the delay. I was stranded in Hong Kong for almost a week after I missed a flight. This is the final version of the minutes with the corrections and edits that people sent. This is the corrected final version. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please > advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to > the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay > with them. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC Meeting Minutes Final.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 16388 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Nov 8 05:31:40 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 11:31:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Study on Surveilance References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321B8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/493032/IPOL-LIBE_ET%282013%29493032_EN.pdf 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 09:12:46 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 03:12:46 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC Meeting Minutes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apologies, I regret the inconvenience, had attached the document. Sala On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Apologies for the delay. I was stranded in Hong Kong for almost a week > after I missed a flight. This is the final version of the minutes with the > corrections and edits that people sent. This is the corrected final version. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please >> advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to >> the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay >> with them. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC Meeting Minutes - Final.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 16426 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 09:13:27 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 03:13:27 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC Meeting Minutes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: meant to say had attached the wrong document earlier. On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Apologies, I regret the inconvenience, had attached the document. > > Sala > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Apologies for the delay. I was stranded in Hong Kong for almost a week >> after I missed a flight. This is the final version of the minutes with the >> corrections and edits that people sent. This is the corrected final version. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please >>> advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to >>> the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay >>> with them. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Fri Nov 8 12:04:58 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 18:04:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Study on Surveilance Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:31 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: FYI http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/493032/IPOL-LIBE_ET%282013%29493032_EN.pdf - - - This report deserves a broad dissemination, notably with the media, for arousing citizens perception of the threats to democracy resulting from mass surveillance. The shortsighted argument "everybody does it" has to be debunked. For a quick summary of the document, skip to page 39 (conclusions) 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Nov 8 12:58:00 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 18:58:00 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <527CAD9B.9090803@gold.ac.uk> References: <527CAD9B.9090803@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Nov 8 13:13:20 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 19:13:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <527D29C0.4060509@wzb.eu> Hi Sala, the idea to coordinate civil society applications for the MAG has been discussed in previous years. The problem is that civil society around the world is much less organized than businesses. I don't see on what basis we could deny someone the right to put her name forward to the IGF secretariat. Neither bestbits nor the IG causus has any authority to monopolize the application process. Support by IGC/bestbits processes is likely to increase chances to be selected. Isn't that good enough under given circumstances? jeanette Am 08.11.13 00:12, schrieb Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: > Dear IGC, Best bits, APC, Diplo, Internet Rights and Principles Coalition, > > I am not subscribed to other lists so have opted to list the > coordinators of these lists instead. In light of the MAG renewal and > selections, I would like to invite you to consider whether the idea for > a joint NomCom where civil society can channel selections in a > consolidated form. > > There should also be a consolidated framework of expected standards of > behaviour and deliverables for MAG civil society representatives and in > matters of accountability to the civil society at large. > > If it is too late to consider this for this round, it is still something > that collectively civil society can communicate to UNDESA if there is > consensus for this. This will ensure no "gaming" of systems and will > demand accountability and encourage an open and transparent process. > > For the Business community, they are in consensus that the ICC is to > facilitate the process. Whilst for civil society there is no consensus > on a any single body to represent the selection process, I feel that it > is something that should at least be discussed. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Nov 8, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Izumi AIZU > wrote: > >> Here comes the MAG renewal message. >> >> I hope IGC will work on this quickly. >> >> izumi >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Chengetai Masango* > >> Date: 2013/11/7 >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal >> To: MAG List IGF > > >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement >> on the MAG renewal process >> for 2014. >> The hard deadline for the submission of names is *1 December 2013*. >> >> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a >> stakeholder group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some >> documentation stating the selection process would be appreciated. >> >> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your >> respective stakeholder groups. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Chengetai >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Igfmaglist mailing list >> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org >> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> www.anr.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Nov 8 14:19:40 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 20:19:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Study on Surveilance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53BF11CD-6E0B-4E52-9415-3D237C7D311E@cafonso.ca> Merci/Danke, Louis & Wolf! sent from a dumbphone > On 08/11/2013, at 18:04, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:31 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > FYI > > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/493032/IPOL-LIBE_ET%282013%29493032_EN.pdf > > - - - > > This report deserves a broad dissemination, notably with the media, for arousing citizens perception of the threats to democracy resulting from mass surveillance. The shortsighted argument "everybody does it" has to be debunked. > > For a quick summary of the document, skip to page 39 (conclusions) > > Louis > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 14:45:44 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:45:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: We just posted about the sad future the ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04d101cedcbb$1dac28a0$590479e0$@gmail.com> Good blogpost (below) by Tom Lowenhaupt on DotNYC, one of the new city Top Level Domains TLD's. Worth a dig into the archives there and particularly http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/project-home to see what can/should be done with city TLD's M From: Thomas Lowenhaupt (Google+) [mailto:replyto-b49e31b at plus.google.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 12:17 PM To: gurstein at gmail.com Subject: We just posted about the sad future the ... We just posted about the sad future the .nyc TLD unless there's a serious change at city hall. And guess what, here comes de Blasio. Called "Hope.nyc?" it looks toward the mayor-elect to salvage it for neighborhoods, small business, civic advancement... Campaign for .nyc > Hope.nyc? If there was any good news it was a smidgen of progress on the nexus issue - the requirement that those using .nyc do... Reply to this email to comment publicly on Google+. Or view Thomas Lowenhaupt's post > Thomas Lowenhaupt shared this post with gurstein at gmail.com. Mute Thomas Lowenhaupt to stop receiving notifications from them. Mute updates to this post. This notification was sent to gurstein at gmail.com; Go to your notification delivery settings to update your address. Manage subscriptions to change what emails you receive from Google+. Privacy tip: Protect your info. Remove your email signature before you reply. Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy, Mountain View, CA 94043 USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 15:38:29 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:38:29 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Richard Stallman: How Much Surveillance Can Democracy Withstand? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation Message-ID: <055301cedcc2$7c67b2e0$753718a0$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 8:32 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] How Much Surveillance Can Democracy Withstand? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation [ I would like to hear comments on this djf] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.html How Much Surveillance Can Democracy Withstand? by Richard Stallman A version of this article was first published in Wired in October 2013. The current level of general surveillance in society is incompatible with human rights. To recover our freedom and restore democracy, we must reduce surveillance to the point where it is possible for whistleblowers of all kinds to talk with journalists without being spotted. To do this reliably, we must reduce the surveillance capacity of the systems we use. Using free/libre software, as I've advocated for 30 years, is the first step in taking control of our digital lives. We can't trust nonfree software; the NSA uses and even creates security weaknesses in nonfree software to invade our own computers and routers. Free software gives us control of our own computers, but that won't protect our privacy once we set foot on the Internet. Bipartisan legislation to "curtail the domestic surveillance powers" in the U.S. is being drawn up, but it relies on limiting the government's use of our virtual dossiers. That won't suffice to protect whistleblowers if "catching the whistleblower" is grounds for access sufficient to identify him or her. We need to go further. Thanks to Edward Snowden's disclosures, we know that the current level of general surveillance in society is incompatible with human rights. The repeated harassment and prosecution of dissidents, sources, and journalists provides confirmation. We need to reduce the level of general surveillance, but how far? Where exactly is the maximum tolerable level of surveillance, beyond which it becomes oppressive? That happens when surveillance interferes with the functioning of democracy: when whistleblowers (such as Snowden) are likely to be caught. The Upper Limit on Surveillance in a Democracy If whistleblowers don't dare reveal crimes and lies, we lose the last shred of effective control over our government and institutions. That's why surveillance that enables the state to find out who has talked with a reporter is too much surveillance-too much for democracy to endure. An unnamed U.S. government official ominously told journalists in 2011 that the U.S. would not subpoena reporters because "We know who you're talking to." Sometimes journalists' phone call records are subpoenaed to find this out, but Snowden has shown us that in effect they subpoena all the phone call records of everyone in the U.S., all the time. Opposition and dissident activities need to keep secrets from states that are willing to play dirty tricks on them. The ACLU has demonstrated the U.S. government's systematic practice of infiltrating peaceful dissident groups on the pretext that there might be terrorists among them. The point at which surveillance is too much is the point at which the state can find who spoke to a known journalist or a known dissident. Information, Once Collected, Will Be Misused When people recognize that the level of general surveillance is too high, the first response is to propose limits on access to the accumulated data. That sounds nice, but it won't fix the problem, not even slightly, even supposing that the government obeys the rules. (The NSA has misled the FISA court, which said it was unable to effectively hold the NSA accountable.) Suspicion of a crime will be grounds for access, so once a whistleblower is accused of "espionage," finding the "spy" will provide an excuse to access the accumulated material. The state's surveillance staff will misuse the data for personal reasons too. Some NSA agents used U.S. surveillance systems to track their lovers-past, present, or wished-for-in a practice called "LOVEINT." The NSA says it has caught and punished this a few times; we don't know how many other times it wasn't caught. But these events shouldn't surprise us, because police have long used their access to driver's license records to track down someone attractive, a practice known as "running a plate for a date." Surveillance data will always be used for other purposes, even if this is prohibited. Once the data has been accumulated and the state has the possibility of access to it, it can misuse that data in dreadful ways. Total surveillance plus vague law provides an opening for a massive fishing expedition against any desired target. To make journalism and democracy safe, we must limit the accumulation of data that is easily accessible to the state. Robust Protection for Privacy Must Be Technical The Electronic Frontier Foundation and other organizations propose a set of legal principles designed to prevent the abuses of massive surveillance. These principles include, crucially, explicit legal protection for whistleblowers; as a consequence, they would be adequate for protecting democratic freedoms-if adopted completely and enforced without exception forever. However, such legal protections are precarious: as recent history shows, they can be repealed (as in the FISA Amendments Act), suspended, or ignored. Meanwhile, demagogues will cite the usual excuses as grounds for total surveillance; any terrorist attack, even one that kills just a handful of people, will give them an opportunity. If limits on access to the data are set aside, it will be as if they had never existed: years worth of dossiers would suddenly become available for misuse by the state and its agents and, if collected by companies, for their private misuse as well. If, however, we stop the collection of dossiers on everyone, those dossiers won't exist, and there will be no way to compile them retroactively. A new illiberal regime would have to implement surveillance afresh, and it would only collect data starting at that date. As for suspending or momentarily ignoring this law, the idea would hardly make sense. We Must Design Every System for Privacy If we don't want a total surveillance society, we must consider surveillance a kind of social pollution, and limit the surveillance impact of each new digital system just as we limit the environmental impact of physical construction. For example: "Smart" meters for electricity are touted for sending the power company moment-by-moment data about each customer's electric usage, including how usage compares with users in general. This is implemented based on general surveillance, but does not require any surveillance. It would be easy for the power company to calculate the average usage in a residential neighborhood by dividing the total usage by the number of subscribers, and send that to the meters. Each customer's meter could compare her usage, over any desired period of time, with the average usage pattern for that period. The same benefit, with no surveillance! We need to design such privacy into all our digital systems. Remedy for Collecting Data: Leaving It Dispersed One way to make monitoring safe for privacy is to keep the data dispersed and inconvenient to access. Old-fashioned security cameras were no threat to privacy. The recording was stored on the premises, and kept for a few weeks at most. Because of the inconvenience of accessing these recordings, it was never done massively; they were accessed only in the places where someone reported a crime. It would not be feasible to physically collect millions of tapes every day and watch them or copy them. Nowadays, security cameras have become surveillance cameras: they are connected to the Internet so recordings can be collected in a data center and saved forever. This is already dangerous, but it is going to get worse. Advances in face recognition may bring the day when suspected journalists can be tracked on the street all the time to see who they talk with. Internet-connected cameras often have lousy digital security themselves, so anyone could watch what the camera sees. To restore privacy, we should ban the use of Internet-connected cameras aimed where and when the public is admitted, except when carried by people. Everyone must be free to post photos and video recordings occasionally, but the systematic accumulation of such data on the Internet must be limited. Remedy for Internet Commerce Surveillance Most data collection comes from people's own digital activities. Usually the data is collected first by companies. But when it comes to the threat to privacy and democracy, it makes no difference whether surveillance is done directly by the state or farmed out to a business, because the data that the companies collect is systematically available to the state. The NSA, through PRISM, has gotten into the databases of many large Internet corporations. AT&T has saved all its phone call records since 1987 and makes them available to the DEA to search on request. Strictly speaking, the U.S. government does not possess that data, but in practical terms it may as well possess it. The goal of making journalism and democracy safe therefore requires that we reduce the data collected about people by any organization, not just by the state. We must redesign digital systems so that they do not accumulate data about their users. If they need digital data about our transactions, they should not be allowed to keep them more than a short time beyond what is inherently necessary for their dealings with us. One of the motives for the current level of surveillance of the Internet is that sites are financed through advertising based on tracking users' activities and propensities. This converts a mere annoyance-advertising that we can learn to ignore-into a surveillance system that harms us whether we know it or not. Purchases over the Internet also track their users. And we are all aware that "privacy policies" are more excuses to violate privacy than commitments to uphold it. We could correct both problems by adopting a system of anonymous payments-anonymous for the payer, that is. (We don't want the payee to dodge taxes.) Bitcoin is not anonymous, but technology for digital cash was first developed 25 years ago; we need only suitable business arrangements, and for the state not to obstruct them. A further threat from sites' collection of personal data is that security breakers might get in, take it, and misuse it. This includes customers' credit card details. An anonymous payment system would end this danger: a security hole in the site can't hurt you if the site knows nothing about you. Remedy for Travel Surveillance We must convert digital toll collection to anonymous payment (using digital cash, for instance). License-plate recognition systems recognize all license plates, and the data can be kept indefinitely; they should be required by law to notice and record only those license numbers that are on a list of cars sought by court orders. A less secure alternative would record all cars locally but only for a few days, and not make the full data available over the Internet; access to the data should be limited to searching for a list of court-ordered license-numbers. The U.S. "no-fly" list must be abolished because it is punishment without trial. It is acceptable to have a list of people whose person and luggage will be searched with extra care, and anonymous passengers on domestic flights could be treated as if they were on this list. It is also acceptable to bar non-citizens, if they are not permitted to enter the country at all, from boarding flights to the country. This ought to be enough for all legitimate purposes. Many mass transit systems use some kind of smart cards or RFIDs for payment. These systems accumulate personal data: if you once make the mistake of paying with anything but cash, they associate the card permanently with your name. Furthermore, they record all travel associated with each card. Together they amount to massive surveillance. This data collection must be reduced. Navigation services do surveillance: the user's computer tells the map service the user's location and where the user wants to go; then the server determines the route and sends it back to the user's computer, which displays it. Nowadays, the server probably records the user's locations, since there is nothing to prevent it. This surveillance is not inherently necessary, and redesign could avoid it: free/libre software in the user's computer could download map data for the pertinent regions (if not downloaded previously), compute the route, and display it, without ever telling anyone where the user is or wants to go. Systems for borrowing bicycles, etc., can be designed so that the borrower's identity is known only inside the station where the item was borrowed. Borrowing would inform all stations that the item is "out," so when the user returns it at any station (in general, a different one), that station will know where and when that item was borrowed. It will inform the other station that the item is no longer "out." It will also calculate the user's bill, and send it (after waiting some random number of minutes) to headquarters along a ring of stations, so that headquarters would not find out which station the bill came from. Once this is done, the return station would forget all about the transaction. If an item remains "out" for too long, the station where it was borrowed can inform headquarters; in that case, it could send the borrower's identity immediately. Remedy for Communications Dossiers Internet service providers and telephone companies keep extensive data on their users' contacts (browsing, phone calls, etc). With mobile phones, they also record the user's physical location. They keep these dossiers for a long time: over 30 years, in the case of AT&T. Soon they will even record the user's body activities. It appears that the NSA collects cell phone location data in bulk. Unmonitored communication is impossible where systems create such dossiers. So it should be illegal to create or keep them. ISPs and phone companies must not be allowed to keep this information for very long, in the absence of a court order to surveil a certain party. This solution is not entirely satisfactory, because it won't physically stop the government from collecting all the information immediately as it is generated-which is what the U.S. does with some or all phone companies. We would have to rely on prohibiting that by law. However, that would be better than the current situation, where the relevant law (the PATRIOT Act) does not clearly prohibit the practice. In addition, if the government did resume this sort of surveillance, it would not get data about everyone's phone calls made prior to that time. But Some Surveillance Is Necessary For the state to find criminals, it needs to be able to investigate specific crimes, or specific suspected planned crimes, under a court order. With the Internet, the power to tap phone conversations would naturally extend to the power to tap Internet connections. This power is easy to abuse for political reasons, but it is also necessary. Fortunately, this won't make it possible to find whistleblowers after the fact. Individuals with special state-granted power, such as police, forfeit their right to privacy and must be monitored. (In fact, police have their own jargon term for perjury, "testilying," since they do it so frequently, particularly about protesters and photographers.) One city in California that required police to wear video cameras all the time found their use of force fell by 60%. The ACLU is in favor of this. Corporations are not people, and not entitled to human rights. It is legitimate to require businesses to publish the details of processes that might cause chemical, biological, nuclear, fiscal, computational (e.g., DRM) or political (e.g., lobbying) hazards to society, to whatever level is needed for public well-being. The danger of these operations (consider the BP oil spill, the Fukushima meltdowns, and the 2008 fiscal crisis) dwarfs that of terrorism. However, journalism must be protected from surveillance even when it is carried out as part of a business. Digital technology has brought about a tremendous increase in the level of surveillance of our movements, actions, and communications. It is far more than we experienced in the 1990s, and far more than people behind the Iron Curtain experienced in the 1980s, and would still be far more even with additional legal limits on state use of the accumulated data. Unless we believe that our free countries previously suffered from a grave surveillance deficit, and ought to be surveilled more than the Soviet Union and East Germany were, we must reverse this increase. That requires stopping the accumulation of big data about people. Copyright 2013 Richard Stallman Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 08 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 7c5b007&post_id=20131106113712:ACB2AC62-4701-11E3-B1CC-E64EA58CAE5F Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 19:59:30 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 13:59:30 +1300 Subject: [governance] MAG Renewal In-Reply-To: <527D29C0.4060509@wzb.eu> References: <527D29C0.4060509@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Sala, > > the idea to coordinate civil society applications for the MAG has been > discussed in previous years. The problem is that civil society around the > world is much less organized than businesses. I don't see on what basis we > could deny someone the right to put her name forward to the IGF > secretariat. Neither bestbits nor the IG causus has any authority to > monopolize the application process. > Support by IGC/bestbits processes is likely to increase chances to be > selected. Isn't that good enough under given circumstances? > jeanette > > [Sala: I am glad that it was at least discussed in previous years which means that there was an opportunity for people to think of the implications. It is also possible that 2013 -2014 presents a unique set of circumstances within the global landscape that accelerates the demand for greater cohesion and coordination. The issue of MS Selection process pertaining to civil society representatives is not specific to MAG selection but for selection of agreed "spaces" and "contexts" within the Internet Governance world. You are absolutely right, as there is nothing stopping anyone from applying directly as it is their right to. For me the rationale is not so much about securing spaces for voices from our "specific stakeholder group" but a shift towards some sort of framework that addresses the following:- *Expectations* 1)Expectations by Civil Society of its representatives - Issues such as Reporting, Early Warning Notifications, Highlighting considerable fluxes in the discussions, *Inclusion* 2)Allows for meaningful engagement and a sense of inclusion in the processes; From time to time seeking general views of the wider community; The development of the framework to have legitimacy can be put forward to all civil society groups and individuals participating in national and regional IGFs. Care can be take to solicit views from the ground as to how they feel about such a framework. *Principles* 3) The cross civil society groups should identify a set of principles the nature of its working together. This helps to moderate the climate for meaningful engagement. It could include things like collaboration, etc. *Vehicle for Facilitation* 4)Identify the vehicle to facilitate the setting up of NomCom where they do not necessarily have to be from one organisation but the selection of the NomCom must be done in an open and transparent manner allowing for others to apply. This can mean that the framework would set out the nature of the NomCom, could be regional diversity aside from just random drawing of numbers but it should be the result of cross- civil society dialogue that allows people to discuss the manner in which the selection should be made; We have a few options but two that stand out at the moment are: - Restrict the Framework to MS Selection Processes only - Have a General Framework for Engagement that includes MS Selection processes as well as Joint Advocacy on agreed Issues Kind Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 8 20:53:51 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 14:53:51 +1300 Subject: [governance] Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society #Azerbaijan #Moldova #Turkey #US State Department Message-ID: Dear All, For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available through the US State Department, see below: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) November 8, 2013 ------------------------------ Department of State *Public Notice* *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) *SUMMARY* The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and rule of law in Europe and Eurasia. *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in order to obtain a username and password to submit your application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm**. * *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the following issues: *Moldova* *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, economic and political conditions. This program should focus on one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals which address more than one of the categories. *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. Activities could include, but are not limited to: training minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making process; providing opportunities for participants to network with other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement, organizational management, or communication skills. *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, tolerance, and understanding through components such as inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with the majority group in joint activities. *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms of educational opportunities and outcomes. *Turkey* *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and participate in the political process. The program should support civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and educate citizens on their right to participate in the political process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices, including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability. Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to educate their constituents and the general populace on fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens expectations for political participation. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political environment for civil society in Turkey and an established ability to work with diverse civil society groups. *Azerbaijan* *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil society in enhancing government accountability and respect for fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory democratic system of government. The program should also support the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to: technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional independent civil society. *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm* . Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to use the given space effectively. An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically ineligible.* Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* or *www.grants.gov* by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the solicitation and this document. *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* * or **www.grants.gov* *in their entirety. DRL bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes.* Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed. *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* . *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the organization or other sources, such as public-private partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, technology, or science- related projects unless they have an explicit component related to the requested program objectives listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative. DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of government. The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. This request for proposals will appear on *www.grantosolutions.gov*or *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* . *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* . Once the deadline has passed, State Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed. ------------------------------ Stay connected with the State Department: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 8 23:24:20 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 05:24:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and to the coordinators of the IGC I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as potentially highly problematic. Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at least, shaping and directing that capacity. People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic interests. For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project where a US government agency is among the funders. For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships in the future. Greetings, Norbert Sala wrote: > Dear All, > > For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to > strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available > through the US State Department, see below: > > > > Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for Proposals: > Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia > (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > > November 8, 2013 > > ------------------------------ > > Department of State > > *Public Notice* > > *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: > *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia > (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > > *SUMMARY* > > The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a > Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting > proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and rule > of law in Europe and Eurasia. > > *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * > *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * > *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in > order to obtain a username and password to submit your application. > For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission > Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at * > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm**. > * > > *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* > > DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program > concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the > following issues: > > *Moldova* > > *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 available):* > DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of minorities in > Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, economic and > political conditions. This program should focus on one of three > areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or Education. Proposals > should focus on more than one minority group and may include the > Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or other communities. > Proposals should clearly indicate which of the three categories they > will address. DRL also encourages proposals which address more than > one of the categories. > > *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on > developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local and > national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. Activities > could include, but are not limited to: training minority civic > leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in political advocacy and to > participate in the decision-making process; providing opportunities > for participants to network with other minority leaders both within > Moldova and through regional civil society networks; and targeting > training for civic leaders and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights > and enforcement, organizational management, or communication skills. > > *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on > minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in Moldova. > The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, tolerance, > and understanding through components such as inter-ethnic youth > activities or cross-cultural education. The program could raise > awareness and knowledge of minority cultures and values. Proposals > should involve minority interaction with the majority group in joint > activities. > > *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving > educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through > activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer camps, > internship opportunities, or language training. The program should > focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms of educational > opportunities and outcomes. > > *Turkey* > > *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately > $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of civil > society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase citizens’ > awareness that they should be informed about and participate in the > political process. The program should support civil society in > advocating for stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, and > protection of fundamental freedoms; and educate citizens on their > right to participate in the political process. The program should > build coalitions among diverse civil society groups and NGOs to bring > together disparate voices, including traditionally marginalized > groups, to advocate for respect for fundamental freedoms and > government accountability. Activities should emphasize the value of > civil society engagement in public policy debates and encourage these > coalitions to educate their constituents and the general populace on > fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their government > accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. Proposals > should take advantage of traditional and new methods of outreach to > help citizens share their views and build citizens expectations for > political participation. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a > strong knowledge of the political environment for civil society in > Turkey and an established ability to work with diverse civil society > groups. > > *Azerbaijan* > > *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 > available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil > society in enhancing government accountability and respect for > fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program will > encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to promote > an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory democratic system > of government. The program should also support the efforts of civil > society in human rights and anti-corruption advocacy, while assisting > civil society leaders and NGOs in increased public outreach. > Proposals should identify best practices in efforts to promote > democratic reforms and rule of law, and assess the needs of > independent democracy activists and NGOs. Program activities could > include, but are not limited to: technical assistance to build the > capacity of Azeri democracy and human rights activists and NGOs in > key communities to engage in effective public outreach and advocacy; > support for activities to encourage results-oriented, constructive > debate and advocacy by citizens and civil society organizations; > linking NGOs and activists advocating for justice, accountability > and/or fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s > regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized grants > to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and grassroots > organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability and/or > fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a successful > proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong > knowledge of the environment for civil society in Azerbaijan and an > established ability to work with regional independent civil society. > > *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* > > Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions > (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm* > . > > Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any > time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this > document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). > > To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL > Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section > up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to > use the given space effectively. > > An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one per > country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries and/or > themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals that request > less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than the award ceiling > ($500,000) may be deemed technically ineligible.* > > Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive > electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* > or *www.grants.gov* > by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before > 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions > contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission > Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of submission; > and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the > solicitation and this document. > > *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals > have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* > * or **www.grants.gov* > *in their entirety. DRL bears no > responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or > conversion processes.* > > Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. Department of > State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing > proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed. > > *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will > need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* > . > > *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* > > Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the > organization or other sources, such as public-private partnerships, > will be highly considered. Projects that have a strong academic, > research, conference, or dialogue focus will not be deemed > competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, technology, or science- > related projects unless they have an explicit component related to > the requested program objectives listed above. Projects that focus on > commercial law or economic development will be rated as > non-competitive. Cost sharing is strongly encouraged, and cost > sharing contributions should be outlined in the proposal budget and > budget narrative. > > DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, for > any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist > organization, whether or not elected members of government. > > The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be > modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information > provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be > binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award > commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the > right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance > with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. > > This request for proposals will appear on > *www.grantosolutions.gov*or > *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s website, > *www.state.gov/j/drl* . > > *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* > > Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please feel > free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* > . Once the deadline has passed, State Department > officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at embassies overseas - > may not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire > proposal review process is completed. > > > ------------------------------ > > Stay connected with the State Department: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Nov 9 00:41:09 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:41:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> Message-ID: I agree with your quite relevant points, Norbert. Given the circumstances, I am surprised by the suggestion to engage with such funding. frt rgds --c.a. sent from a dumbphone > On 09/11/2013, at 05:24, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering > Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and > to the coordinators of the IGC > > > I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, > when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as > potentially highly problematic. > > Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at > least, shaping and directing that capacity. > > People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes > cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters that > could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic interests. > > For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively > disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps such > as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a clear > relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. > > Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering > committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the > coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial > relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project > where a US government agency is among the funders. > > > For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding relationship, > I've never had any such funding relationships, and I have no intention > of entering into any such funding relationships in the future. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Sala wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to >> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available >> through the US State Department, see below: >> >> >> >> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for Proposals: >> Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia >> (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >> >> November 8, 2013 >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Department of State >> >> *Public Notice* >> >> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: >> *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia >> (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >> >> *SUMMARY* >> >> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a >> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting >> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and rule >> of law in Europe and Eurasia. >> >> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * >> *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * >> *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in >> order to obtain a username and password to submit your application. >> For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission >> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at * >> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm**. >> * >> >> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* >> >> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program >> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the >> following issues: >> >> *Moldova* >> >> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 available):* >> DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of minorities in >> Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, economic and >> political conditions. This program should focus on one of three >> areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or Education. Proposals >> should focus on more than one minority group and may include the >> Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or other communities. >> Proposals should clearly indicate which of the three categories they >> will address. DRL also encourages proposals which address more than >> one of the categories. >> >> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on >> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local and >> national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. Activities >> could include, but are not limited to: training minority civic >> leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in political advocacy and to >> participate in the decision-making process; providing opportunities >> for participants to network with other minority leaders both within >> Moldova and through regional civil society networks; and targeting >> training for civic leaders and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights >> and enforcement, organizational management, or communication skills. >> >> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on >> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in Moldova. >> The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, tolerance, >> and understanding through components such as inter-ethnic youth >> activities or cross-cultural education. The program could raise >> awareness and knowledge of minority cultures and values. Proposals >> should involve minority interaction with the majority group in joint >> activities. >> >> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving >> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through >> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer camps, >> internship opportunities, or language training. The program should >> focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms of educational >> opportunities and outcomes. >> >> *Turkey* >> >> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately >> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of civil >> society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase citizens’ >> awareness that they should be informed about and participate in the >> political process. The program should support civil society in >> advocating for stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, and >> protection of fundamental freedoms; and educate citizens on their >> right to participate in the political process. The program should >> build coalitions among diverse civil society groups and NGOs to bring >> together disparate voices, including traditionally marginalized >> groups, to advocate for respect for fundamental freedoms and >> government accountability. Activities should emphasize the value of >> civil society engagement in public policy debates and encourage these >> coalitions to educate their constituents and the general populace on >> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their government >> accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. Proposals >> should take advantage of traditional and new methods of outreach to >> help citizens share their views and build citizens expectations for >> political participation. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a >> strong knowledge of the political environment for civil society in >> Turkey and an established ability to work with diverse civil society >> groups. >> >> *Azerbaijan* >> >> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 >> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil >> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for >> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program will >> encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to promote >> an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory democratic system >> of government. The program should also support the efforts of civil >> society in human rights and anti-corruption advocacy, while assisting >> civil society leaders and NGOs in increased public outreach. >> Proposals should identify best practices in efforts to promote >> democratic reforms and rule of law, and assess the needs of >> independent democracy activists and NGOs. Program activities could >> include, but are not limited to: technical assistance to build the >> capacity of Azeri democracy and human rights activists and NGOs in >> key communities to engage in effective public outreach and advocacy; >> support for activities to encourage results-oriented, constructive >> debate and advocacy by citizens and civil society organizations; >> linking NGOs and activists advocating for justice, accountability >> and/or fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s >> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized grants >> to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and grassroots >> organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability and/or >> fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a successful >> proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong >> knowledge of the environment for civil society in Azerbaijan and an >> established ability to work with regional independent civil society. >> >> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* >> >> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions >> (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at >> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm* >> . >> >> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any >> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this >> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). >> >> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL >> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section >> up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to >> use the given space effectively. >> >> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one per >> country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries and/or >> themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals that request >> less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than the award ceiling >> ($500,000) may be deemed technically ineligible.* >> >> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive >> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* >> or *www.grants.gov* >> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before >> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions >> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission >> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of submission; >> and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the >> solicitation and this document. >> >> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals >> have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* >> * or **www.grants.gov* >> *in their entirety. DRL bears no >> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or >> conversion processes.* >> >> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. Department of >> State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing >> proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed. >> >> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will >> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* >> . >> >> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* >> >> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the >> organization or other sources, such as public-private partnerships, >> will be highly considered. Projects that have a strong academic, >> research, conference, or dialogue focus will not be deemed >> competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, technology, or science- >> related projects unless they have an explicit component related to >> the requested program objectives listed above. Projects that focus on >> commercial law or economic development will be rated as >> non-competitive. Cost sharing is strongly encouraged, and cost >> sharing contributions should be outlined in the proposal budget and >> budget narrative. >> >> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, for >> any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist >> organization, whether or not elected members of government. >> >> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be >> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information >> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be >> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award >> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the >> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance >> with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. >> >> This request for proposals will appear on >> *www.grantosolutions.gov*or >> *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s website, >> *www.state.gov/j/drl* . >> >> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* >> >> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please feel >> free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* >> . Once the deadline has passed, State Department >> officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at embassies overseas - >> may not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire >> proposal review process is completed. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Stay connected with the State Department: > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 01:47:33 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 19:47:33 +1300 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> Message-ID: Dear All, The purpose of sending that email in relation to funds was to enable and allow organisations who wish to partake or to apply for funding the freedom to do so. If organisations do not wish to apply that is their prerogative as well. If there are organisations who wish to access those funds to allow for capacity building on the ground, then we should allow them their freedom to do so. At the end of the day, there is "freedom of choice". The three countries that were listed have clear issues and challenges with Human Rights and civil society participation is very mimimal. If the funding allows for the enhancement of civil society organisations, as long as there are no strings attached to the grant and they meet the demand, then it may be useful for some organisation in any one of the three countries. Kind Regards, Sala Kind Regards, Sala On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I agree with your quite relevant points, Norbert. Given the circumstances, > I am surprised by the suggestion to engage with such funding. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > sent from a dumbphone > > > On 09/11/2013, at 05:24, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering > > Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and > > to the coordinators of the IGC > > > > > > I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, > > when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as > > potentially highly problematic. > > > > Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at > > least, shaping and directing that capacity. > > > > People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes > > cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters that > > could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic interests. > > > > For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively > > disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps such > > as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a clear > > relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. > > > > Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering > > committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the > > coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial > > relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project > > where a US government agency is among the funders. > > > > > > For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding relationship, > > I've never had any such funding relationships, and I have no intention > > of entering into any such funding relationships in the future. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > > > Sala wrote: > > > >> Dear All, > >> > >> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to > >> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available > >> through the US State Department, see below: > >> > >> > >> > >> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for Proposals: > >> Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia > >> (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > >> > >> November 8, 2013 > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Department of State > >> > >> *Public Notice* > >> > >> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: > >> *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia > >> (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > >> > >> *SUMMARY* > >> > >> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a > >> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting > >> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and rule > >> of law in Europe and Eurasia. > >> > >> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * > >> *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * > >> *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in > >> order to obtain a username and password to submit your application. > >> For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission > >> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at * > >> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. > >> * > >> > >> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* > >> > >> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program > >> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the > >> following issues: > >> > >> *Moldova* > >> > >> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 available):* > >> DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of minorities in > >> Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, economic and > >> political conditions. This program should focus on one of three > >> areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or Education. Proposals > >> should focus on more than one minority group and may include the > >> Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or other communities. > >> Proposals should clearly indicate which of the three categories they > >> will address. DRL also encourages proposals which address more than > >> one of the categories. > >> > >> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on > >> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local and > >> national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. Activities > >> could include, but are not limited to: training minority civic > >> leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in political advocacy and to > >> participate in the decision-making process; providing opportunities > >> for participants to network with other minority leaders both within > >> Moldova and through regional civil society networks; and targeting > >> training for civic leaders and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights > >> and enforcement, organizational management, or communication skills. > >> > >> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on > >> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in Moldova. > >> The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, tolerance, > >> and understanding through components such as inter-ethnic youth > >> activities or cross-cultural education. The program could raise > >> awareness and knowledge of minority cultures and values. Proposals > >> should involve minority interaction with the majority group in joint > >> activities. > >> > >> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving > >> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through > >> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer camps, > >> internship opportunities, or language training. The program should > >> focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms of educational > >> opportunities and outcomes. > >> > >> *Turkey* > >> > >> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately > >> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of civil > >> society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase citizens’ > >> awareness that they should be informed about and participate in the > >> political process. The program should support civil society in > >> advocating for stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, and > >> protection of fundamental freedoms; and educate citizens on their > >> right to participate in the political process. The program should > >> build coalitions among diverse civil society groups and NGOs to bring > >> together disparate voices, including traditionally marginalized > >> groups, to advocate for respect for fundamental freedoms and > >> government accountability. Activities should emphasize the value of > >> civil society engagement in public policy debates and encourage these > >> coalitions to educate their constituents and the general populace on > >> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their government > >> accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. Proposals > >> should take advantage of traditional and new methods of outreach to > >> help citizens share their views and build citizens expectations for > >> political participation. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a > >> strong knowledge of the political environment for civil society in > >> Turkey and an established ability to work with diverse civil society > >> groups. > >> > >> *Azerbaijan* > >> > >> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 > >> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil > >> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for > >> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program will > >> encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to promote > >> an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory democratic system > >> of government. The program should also support the efforts of civil > >> society in human rights and anti-corruption advocacy, while assisting > >> civil society leaders and NGOs in increased public outreach. > >> Proposals should identify best practices in efforts to promote > >> democratic reforms and rule of law, and assess the needs of > >> independent democracy activists and NGOs. Program activities could > >> include, but are not limited to: technical assistance to build the > >> capacity of Azeri democracy and human rights activists and NGOs in > >> key communities to engage in effective public outreach and advocacy; > >> support for activities to encourage results-oriented, constructive > >> debate and advocacy by citizens and civil society organizations; > >> linking NGOs and activists advocating for justice, accountability > >> and/or fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s > >> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized grants > >> to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and grassroots > >> organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability and/or > >> fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a successful > >> proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong > >> knowledge of the environment for civil society in Azerbaijan and an > >> established ability to work with regional independent civil society. > >> > >> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* > >> > >> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions > >> (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at > >> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> > >> . > >> > >> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any > >> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this > >> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). > >> > >> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL > >> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section > >> up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to > >> use the given space effectively. > >> > >> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one per > >> country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries and/or > >> themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals that request > >> less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than the award ceiling > >> ($500,000) may be deemed technically ineligible.* > >> > >> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive > >> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* > >> or *www.grants.gov* > >> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before > >> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions > >> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission > >> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of submission; > >> and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the > >> solicitation and this document. > >> > >> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals > >> have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* > >> * or **www.grants.gov* > >> *in their entirety. DRL bears no > >> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or > >> conversion processes.* > >> > >> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. Department of > >> State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing > >> proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed. > >> > >> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will > >> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* > >> . > >> > >> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* > >> > >> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the > >> organization or other sources, such as public-private partnerships, > >> will be highly considered. Projects that have a strong academic, > >> research, conference, or dialogue focus will not be deemed > >> competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, technology, or science- > >> related projects unless they have an explicit component related to > >> the requested program objectives listed above. Projects that focus on > >> commercial law or economic development will be rated as > >> non-competitive. Cost sharing is strongly encouraged, and cost > >> sharing contributions should be outlined in the proposal budget and > >> budget narrative. > >> > >> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, for > >> any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist > >> organization, whether or not elected members of government. > >> > >> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be > >> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information > >> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be > >> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award > >> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the > >> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance > >> with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. > >> > >> This request for proposals will appear on > >> *www.grantosolutions.gov*or > >> *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s website, > >> *www.state.gov/j/drl* . > >> > >> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* > >> > >> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please feel > >> free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* > >> . Once the deadline has passed, State Department > >> officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at embassies overseas - > >> may not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire > >> proposal review process is completed. > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Stay connected with the State Department: > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 9 01:52:39 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 07:52:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] definition of "civil society" (was Re: MAG Renewal) In-Reply-To: <20131108175815.509BE32879C@a2knetwork.org> References: <527CAD9B.9090803@gold.ac.uk> <20131108175815.509BE32879C@a2knetwork.org> Message-ID: <20131109075239.66a9b6b5@quill> JFC Morfin wrote: > Kivuva's questions are excellent questions. However, the first > missing question is: "what is civil society?". Indeed that is very much a key question. In Bali, Markus Kummer remarked that he liked the “giggle test” in regard to that question: A claim to be a civil society person can be considered to have been disproved when upon making that claim in a room full of civil society people, people start giggling about that claim. That is true. However I think that in view of various developments, the “giggle test” is nowadays not an effective method anymore for determining the boundaries of civil society. Here's my proposal for a definition: In the context of multistakeholder processes, the term "civil society" should be used only as referring to organizations and individuals who engage while maintaining their independence from those who hold governmental power or economic power in relation to the topics under discussion. 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 anja at internetdemocracy.in Sat Nov 9 02:06:25 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> Message-ID: Norbert, As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global North. With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South, have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go, those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted" position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite different. While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of funding with people in this community (including in the steering committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations, everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends who provided just that environment. And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits. I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have been altered quite radically along these lines. Thanks and best regards, Anja On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering > Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and > to the coordinators of the IGC > > > I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, > when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as > potentially highly problematic. > > Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at > least, shaping and directing that capacity. > > People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes > cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters that > could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic interests. > > For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively > disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps such > as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a clear > relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. > > Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering > committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the > coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial > relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project > where a US government agency is among the funders. > > > For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding relationship, > I've never had any such funding relationships, and I have no intention > of entering into any such funding relationships in the future. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Sala wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to > > strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available > > through the US State Department, see below: > > > > > > > > Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for Proposals: > > Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia > > (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > > > > November 8, 2013 > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Department of State > > > > *Public Notice* > > > > *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: > > *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia > > (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > > > > *SUMMARY* > > > > The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a > > Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting > > proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and rule > > of law in Europe and Eurasia. > > > > *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * > > *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * > > *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in > > order to obtain a username and password to submit your application. > > For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission > > Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at * > > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. > > * > > > > *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* > > > > DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program > > concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the > > following issues: > > > > *Moldova* > > > > *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 available):* > > DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of minorities in > > Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, economic and > > political conditions. This program should focus on one of three > > areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or Education. Proposals > > should focus on more than one minority group and may include the > > Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or other communities. > > Proposals should clearly indicate which of the three categories they > > will address. DRL also encourages proposals which address more than > > one of the categories. > > > > *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on > > developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local and > > national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. Activities > > could include, but are not limited to: training minority civic > > leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in political advocacy and to > > participate in the decision-making process; providing opportunities > > for participants to network with other minority leaders both within > > Moldova and through regional civil society networks; and targeting > > training for civic leaders and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights > > and enforcement, organizational management, or communication skills. > > > > *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on > > minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in Moldova. > > The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, tolerance, > > and understanding through components such as inter-ethnic youth > > activities or cross-cultural education. The program could raise > > awareness and knowledge of minority cultures and values. Proposals > > should involve minority interaction with the majority group in joint > > activities. > > > > *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving > > educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through > > activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer camps, > > internship opportunities, or language training. The program should > > focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms of educational > > opportunities and outcomes. > > > > *Turkey* > > > > *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately > > $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of civil > > society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase citizens’ > > awareness that they should be informed about and participate in the > > political process. The program should support civil society in > > advocating for stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, and > > protection of fundamental freedoms; and educate citizens on their > > right to participate in the political process. The program should > > build coalitions among diverse civil society groups and NGOs to bring > > together disparate voices, including traditionally marginalized > > groups, to advocate for respect for fundamental freedoms and > > government accountability. Activities should emphasize the value of > > civil society engagement in public policy debates and encourage these > > coalitions to educate their constituents and the general populace on > > fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their government > > accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. Proposals > > should take advantage of traditional and new methods of outreach to > > help citizens share their views and build citizens expectations for > > political participation. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a > > strong knowledge of the political environment for civil society in > > Turkey and an established ability to work with diverse civil society > > groups. > > > > *Azerbaijan* > > > > *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 > > available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil > > society in enhancing government accountability and respect for > > fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program will > > encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to promote > > an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory democratic system > > of government. The program should also support the efforts of civil > > society in human rights and anti-corruption advocacy, while assisting > > civil society leaders and NGOs in increased public outreach. > > Proposals should identify best practices in efforts to promote > > democratic reforms and rule of law, and assess the needs of > > independent democracy activists and NGOs. Program activities could > > include, but are not limited to: technical assistance to build the > > capacity of Azeri democracy and human rights activists and NGOs in > > key communities to engage in effective public outreach and advocacy; > > support for activities to encourage results-oriented, constructive > > debate and advocacy by citizens and civil society organizations; > > linking NGOs and activists advocating for justice, accountability > > and/or fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s > > regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized grants > > to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and grassroots > > organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability and/or > > fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a successful > > proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong > > knowledge of the environment for civil society in Azerbaijan and an > > established ability to work with regional independent civil society. > > > > *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* > > > > Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions > > (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at > > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> > > . > > > > Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any > > time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this > > document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). > > > > To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL > > Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section > > up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to > > use the given space effectively. > > > > An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one per > > country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries and/or > > themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals that request > > less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than the award ceiling > > ($500,000) may be deemed technically ineligible.* > > > > Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive > > electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* > > or *www.grants.gov* > > by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before > > 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions > > contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission > > Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of submission; > > and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the > > solicitation and this document. > > > > *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals > > have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* > > * or **www.grants.gov* > > *in their entirety. DRL bears no > > responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or > > conversion processes.* > > > > Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. Department of > > State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing > > proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed. > > > > *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will > > need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* > > . > > > > *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* > > > > Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the > > organization or other sources, such as public-private partnerships, > > will be highly considered. Projects that have a strong academic, > > research, conference, or dialogue focus will not be deemed > > competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, technology, or science- > > related projects unless they have an explicit component related to > > the requested program objectives listed above. Projects that focus on > > commercial law or economic development will be rated as > > non-competitive. Cost sharing is strongly encouraged, and cost > > sharing contributions should be outlined in the proposal budget and > > budget narrative. > > > > DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, for > > any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist > > organization, whether or not elected members of government. > > > > The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be > > modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information > > provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be > > binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award > > commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the > > right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance > > with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. > > > > This request for proposals will appear on > > *www.grantosolutions.gov*or > > *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s website, > > *www.state.gov/j/drl* . > > > > *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* > > > > Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please feel > > free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* > > . Once the deadline has passed, State Department > > officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at embassies overseas - > > may not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire > > proposal review process is completed. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Stay connected with the State Department: > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 9 02:13:12 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 01:13:12 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> Message-ID: <20131109071312.GA19041@hserus.net> Anja Kovacs [09/11/13 12:36 +0530]: >As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge the >divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global North. +1 to a large extent. I see the type of individual norbert wants to keep out of civil society, and indeed there may be several such, but this is an extremely gray area with people legitimately wearing several hats and quite good at declaring their affiliation and who they speak for. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 9 02:19:51 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 20:19:51 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> Message-ID: Dear All, I acknowledge the concerns raised by Norbert and others in terms of defining civil society however where it is complex. Iconcur with Anja's views on this matter. each context differs and civil society is diverse and you cannot box them into and segment it into neat little packages because it is relative to context and context differs. Global civil society is complex. We should be building bridges not "burning them". The question that Kivuva asked was in response to my suggestion for a framework for various civil society organisations. I think the discussions including the initiation of a new thread is a distraction from more important core issues that we should be focussing on like:- 1) getting volunteers for the NomCom to select the MAG; 2)getting volunteers for the MAG 3)consolidating our position in terms of discussions on what we want to submit before the deadline for Rio and initiating discussions on the Agenda etc which was already started by Norbert in another thread; 4)Following and assessing the WGEC and ITF88 outcomes; 5)Identifying any issues that CS may have for ICANN in Buenos Aires for those participate in that space (all rights reserved and caveats in place for those who do not wish to engage with ICANN) 6)Debrief on the IGF in Bali ; etc etc I would respectfully suggest to Norbert and others if we could agree to differ the dialogue to a later time as some topics can be left to a later stage to discuss whilst we sort oursleves out. What are your thoughts? Warm Regards, Sala On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Norbert, > > As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge the > divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global North. > > With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite > unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as you > seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity of funding > decisions many activists, especially in the Global South, have to take all > the time and the tremendous care with which they face these difficult > questions. Whatever way these decisions go, those who make them so > carefully are quite aware of the fact that nobody is exempt from the taint > of money. In fact, the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear > someone self-funded a trip to an international meeting (which some seem to > see as the most "untainted" position) is: "how the hell are they able to do > that?!?!?". The salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector > don't quite allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of > decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite > intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the colour > of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we are situated > in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis of accepting any > particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite different. > > While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of > funding with people in this community (including in the steering committee) > and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if they take this > matrix of privilege into account. In such situations, everyone will be as > reflective about their own decisions and privilege as about others'. As a > consequence, these conversations are not framed around judgement, but > around compassion and support to question ourselves and push ourselves just > a little bit harder, equip ourselves to carry just a little bit more of > those costs. If I've ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in > my life, it is only because I have for long been blessed with the company > of friends who provided just that environment. > > And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am prepared > to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should take it > forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this conversation in > line with the objectives of Best Bits. > > I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have been > altered quite radically along these lines. > > Thanks and best regards, > Anja > > > > On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering >> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and >> to the coordinators of the IGC >> >> >> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, >> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as >> potentially highly problematic. >> >> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at >> least, shaping and directing that capacity. >> >> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes >> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters that >> could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic interests. >> >> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively >> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps such >> as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a clear >> relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. >> >> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering >> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the >> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial >> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project >> where a US government agency is among the funders. >> >> >> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding relationship, >> I've never had any such funding relationships, and I have no intention >> of entering into any such funding relationships in the future. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> Sala wrote: >> >> > Dear All, >> > >> > For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to >> > strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available >> > through the US State Department, see below: >> > >> > >> > >> > Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for Proposals: >> > Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia >> > (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >> > >> > November 8, 2013 >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > >> > Department of State >> > >> > *Public Notice* >> > >> > *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: >> > *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia >> > (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >> > >> > *SUMMARY* >> > >> > The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a >> > Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting >> > proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and rule >> > of law in Europe and Eurasia. >> > >> > *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * >> > *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * >> > *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in >> > order to obtain a username and password to submit your application. >> > For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission >> > Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at * >> > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< >> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. >> > * >> > >> > *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* >> > >> > DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program >> > concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the >> > following issues: >> > >> > *Moldova* >> > >> > *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 available):* >> > DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of minorities in >> > Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, economic and >> > political conditions. This program should focus on one of three >> > areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or Education. Proposals >> > should focus on more than one minority group and may include the >> > Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or other communities. >> > Proposals should clearly indicate which of the three categories they >> > will address. DRL also encourages proposals which address more than >> > one of the categories. >> > >> > *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on >> > developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local and >> > national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. Activities >> > could include, but are not limited to: training minority civic >> > leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in political advocacy and to >> > participate in the decision-making process; providing opportunities >> > for participants to network with other minority leaders both within >> > Moldova and through regional civil society networks; and targeting >> > training for civic leaders and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights >> > and enforcement, organizational management, or communication skills. >> > >> > *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on >> > minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in Moldova. >> > The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, tolerance, >> > and understanding through components such as inter-ethnic youth >> > activities or cross-cultural education. The program could raise >> > awareness and knowledge of minority cultures and values. Proposals >> > should involve minority interaction with the majority group in joint >> > activities. >> > >> > *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving >> > educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through >> > activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer camps, >> > internship opportunities, or language training. The program should >> > focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms of educational >> > opportunities and outcomes. >> > >> > *Turkey* >> > >> > *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately >> > $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of civil >> > society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase citizens’ >> > awareness that they should be informed about and participate in the >> > political process. The program should support civil society in >> > advocating for stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, and >> > protection of fundamental freedoms; and educate citizens on their >> > right to participate in the political process. The program should >> > build coalitions among diverse civil society groups and NGOs to bring >> > together disparate voices, including traditionally marginalized >> > groups, to advocate for respect for fundamental freedoms and >> > government accountability. Activities should emphasize the value of >> > civil society engagement in public policy debates and encourage these >> > coalitions to educate their constituents and the general populace on >> > fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their government >> > accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. Proposals >> > should take advantage of traditional and new methods of outreach to >> > help citizens share their views and build citizens expectations for >> > political participation. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a >> > strong knowledge of the political environment for civil society in >> > Turkey and an established ability to work with diverse civil society >> > groups. >> > >> > *Azerbaijan* >> > >> > *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 >> > available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil >> > society in enhancing government accountability and respect for >> > fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program will >> > encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to promote >> > an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory democratic system >> > of government. The program should also support the efforts of civil >> > society in human rights and anti-corruption advocacy, while assisting >> > civil society leaders and NGOs in increased public outreach. >> > Proposals should identify best practices in efforts to promote >> > democratic reforms and rule of law, and assess the needs of >> > independent democracy activists and NGOs. Program activities could >> > include, but are not limited to: technical assistance to build the >> > capacity of Azeri democracy and human rights activists and NGOs in >> > key communities to engage in effective public outreach and advocacy; >> > support for activities to encourage results-oriented, constructive >> > debate and advocacy by citizens and civil society organizations; >> > linking NGOs and activists advocating for justice, accountability >> > and/or fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s >> > regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized grants >> > to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and grassroots >> > organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability and/or >> > fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a successful >> > proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong >> > knowledge of the environment for civil society in Azerbaijan and an >> > established ability to work with regional independent civil society. >> > >> > *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* >> > >> > Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions >> > (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at >> > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< >> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> >> > . >> > >> > Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any >> > time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this >> > document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). >> > >> > To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL >> > Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section >> > up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to >> > use the given space effectively. >> > >> > An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one per >> > country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries and/or >> > themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals that request >> > less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than the award ceiling >> > ($500,000) may be deemed technically ineligible.* >> > >> > Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive >> > electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* >> > or *www.grants.gov* >> > by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before >> > 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions >> > contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission >> > Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of submission; >> > and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the >> > solicitation and this document. >> > >> > *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals >> > have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* >> > * or **www.grants.gov* >> > *in their entirety. DRL bears no >> > responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or >> > conversion processes.* >> > >> > Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. Department of >> > State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing >> > proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed. >> > >> > *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will >> > need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* >> > . >> > >> > *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* >> > >> > Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the >> > organization or other sources, such as public-private partnerships, >> > will be highly considered. Projects that have a strong academic, >> > research, conference, or dialogue focus will not be deemed >> > competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, technology, or science- >> > related projects unless they have an explicit component related to >> > the requested program objectives listed above. Projects that focus on >> > commercial law or economic development will be rated as >> > non-competitive. Cost sharing is strongly encouraged, and cost >> > sharing contributions should be outlined in the proposal budget and >> > budget narrative. >> > >> > DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, for >> > any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist >> > organization, whether or not elected members of government. >> > >> > The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be >> > modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information >> > provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be >> > binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award >> > commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the >> > right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance >> > with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. >> > >> > This request for proposals will appear on >> > *www.grantosolutions.gov*or >> > *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s website, >> > *www.state.gov/j/drl* . >> > >> > *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* >> > >> > Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please feel >> > free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* >> > . Once the deadline has passed, State Department >> > officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at embassies overseas - >> > may not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire >> > proposal review process is completed. >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > >> > Stay connected with the State Department: >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 9 03:11:07 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 09:11:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> Message-ID: <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against a wall and shooting them". Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US government? I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in Bali. However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed. Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly. There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one does not want to be an accomplice through silence. Greetings, Norbert Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530 schrieb Anja Kovacs : > Norbert, > > As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge > the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global > North. > > With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite > unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as > you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity > of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South, > have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they > face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go, > those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that > nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing > that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an > international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted" > position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The > salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite > allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of > decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite > intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the > colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we > are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis > of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite > different. > > While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of > funding with people in this community (including in the steering > committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if > they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations, > everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and > privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are > not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to > question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip > ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've > ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is > only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends > who provided just that environment. > > And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am > prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should > take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this > conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits. > > I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have > been altered quite radically along these lines. > > Thanks and best regards, > Anja > > > > On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering > > Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and > > to the coordinators of the IGC > > > > > > I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, > > when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as > > potentially highly problematic. > > > > Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at > > least, shaping and directing that capacity. > > > > People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes > > cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters > > that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic > > interests. > > > > For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively > > disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps > > such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a > > clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. > > > > Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering > > committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the > > coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial > > relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project > > where a US government agency is among the funders. > > > > > > For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding > > relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I > > have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships > > in the future. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > > > Sala wrote: > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to > > > strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available > > > through the US State Department, see below: > > > > > > > > > > > > Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for > > > Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and > > > Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > > > > > > November 8, 2013 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Department of State > > > > > > *Public Notice* > > > > > > *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for > > > Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe > > > and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > > > > > > *SUMMARY* > > > > > > The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a > > > Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting > > > proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and > > > rule of law in Europe and Eurasia. > > > > > > *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * > > > *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * > > > *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in > > > order to obtain a username and password to submit your > > > application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal > > > Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, > > > available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< > > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. > > > * > > > > > > *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* > > > > > > DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program > > > concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the > > > following issues: > > > > > > *Moldova* > > > > > > *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 > > > available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of > > > minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, > > > economic and political conditions. This program should focus on > > > one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or > > > Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group > > > and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or > > > other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the > > > three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals > > > which address more than one of the categories. > > > > > > *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on > > > developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local > > > and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. > > > Activities could include, but are not limited to: training > > > minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in > > > political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making > > > process; providing opportunities for participants to network with > > > other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional > > > civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders > > > and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement, > > > organizational management, or communication skills. > > > > > > *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on > > > minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in > > > Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, > > > tolerance, and understanding through components such as > > > inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The > > > program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures > > > and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with > > > the majority group in joint activities. > > > > > > *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving > > > educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through > > > activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer > > > camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The > > > program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms > > > of educational opportunities and outcomes. > > > > > > *Turkey* > > > > > > *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately > > > $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of > > > civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase > > > citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and > > > participate in the political process. The program should support > > > civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions, > > > the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and > > > educate citizens on their right to participate in the political > > > process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil > > > society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices, > > > including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for > > > respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability. > > > Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement > > > in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to > > > educate their constituents and the general populace on > > > fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their > > > government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. > > > Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of > > > outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens > > > expectations for political participation. Successful proposals > > > will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political > > > environment for civil society in Turkey and an established > > > ability to work with diverse civil society groups. > > > > > > *Azerbaijan* > > > > > > *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 > > > available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil > > > society in enhancing government accountability and respect for > > > fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program > > > will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to > > > promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory > > > democratic system of government. The program should also support > > > the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption > > > advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in > > > increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best > > > practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of > > > law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and > > > NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to: > > > technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and > > > human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in > > > effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to > > > encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by > > > citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and > > > activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or > > > fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s > > > regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized > > > grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and > > > grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability > > > and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a > > > successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a > > > strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in > > > Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional > > > independent civil society. > > > > > > *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* > > > > > > Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission > > > Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at > > > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< > > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> > > > . > > > > > > Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any > > > time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this > > > document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). > > > > > > To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL > > > Review Committee will review the first page of the requested > > > section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages > > > organizations to use the given space effectively. > > > > > > An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one > > > per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries > > > and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals > > > that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than > > > the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically > > > ineligible.* > > > > > > Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive > > > electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* > > > or *www.grants.gov* > > > by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before > > > 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions > > > contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission > > > Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of > > > submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in > > > the solicitation and this document. > > > > > > *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that > > > proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* > > > * or **www.grants.gov* > > > *in their entirety. DRL bears no > > > responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or > > > conversion processes.* > > > > > > Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. > > > Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not > > > discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review > > > process has been completed. > > > > > > *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will > > > need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* > > > . > > > > > > *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* > > > > > > Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the > > > organization or other sources, such as public-private > > > partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a > > > strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not > > > be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, > > > technology, or science- related projects unless they have an > > > explicit component related to the requested program objectives > > > listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic > > > development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is > > > strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be > > > outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative. > > > > > > DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, > > > for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated > > > terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of > > > government. > > > > > > The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be > > > modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information > > > provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be > > > binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award > > > commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the > > > right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in > > > accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. > > > > > > This request for proposals will appear on > > > *www.grantosolutions.gov*or > > > *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s > > > website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* . > > > > > > *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* > > > > > > Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please > > > feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* > > > . Once the deadline has passed, State > > > Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at > > > embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with > > > applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Stay connected with the State Department: > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 9 03:20:02 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 09:20:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> Message-ID: <20131109092002.7faffb42@quill> Sala wrote: > I would respectfully suggest to Norbert and others if we could agree > to differ the dialogue to a later time as some topics can be left to > a later stage to discuss whilst we sort oursleves out. What are your > thoughts? I'm willing to agree to deferring the issue, provided it is deferred to some specific time rather than indefinitely. We can't defer this until we are all comfortable with discussing the issue, since there will never be a time when uncomfortable questions suddenly become comfortable. 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 Nov 9 03:42:16 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 16:42:16 +0800 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> Message-ID: <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> I am all for transparency, but there is little to no completely clean money for civil society, and managing that fact is something we all handle in different ways. I would always assume good faith and not get too judgmental about each others' funding sources without knowing how any conflicts of interest are managed. Speaking personally I am prepared to disclose that there are no donors currently supporting my work on IG, but it is of course supported by Consumers International as my employer. The other projects that I work on are supported by Open Society Foundations, IDRC and a German government agency. This shouldn't be taken to set a precedent for anyone else to detail how they are funded, because there may be any number of constraints that would make them feel unsafe or uneasy about disclosing that on a public list. (Replying from my phone.) -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > On 9 Nov 2013, at 4:11 pm, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to > what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a > member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against > a wall and shooting them". > > Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality > of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding > relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US > government? > > I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried > to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a > related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That > led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which > I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in > Bali. > > However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in > Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected > the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed. > > Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other > countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next > year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly. > > There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one > does not want to be an accomplice through silence. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530 > schrieb Anja Kovacs : > >> Norbert, >> >> As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge >> the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global >> North. >> >> With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite >> unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as >> you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity >> of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South, >> have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they >> face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go, >> those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that >> nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing >> that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an >> international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted" >> position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The >> salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite >> allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of >> decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite >> intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the >> colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we >> are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis >> of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite >> different. >> >> While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of >> funding with people in this community (including in the steering >> committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if >> they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations, >> everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and >> privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are >> not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to >> question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip >> ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've >> ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is >> only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends >> who provided just that environment. >> >> And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am >> prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should >> take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this >> conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits. >> >> I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have >> been altered quite radically along these lines. >> >> Thanks and best regards, >> Anja >> >> >> >>> On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering >>> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and >>> to the coordinators of the IGC >>> >>> >>> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, >>> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as >>> potentially highly problematic. >>> >>> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at >>> least, shaping and directing that capacity. >>> >>> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes >>> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters >>> that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic >>> interests. >>> >>> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively >>> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps >>> such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a >>> clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. >>> >>> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering >>> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the >>> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial >>> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project >>> where a US government agency is among the funders. >>> >>> >>> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding >>> relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I >>> have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships >>> in the future. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> >>> Sala wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to >>>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available >>>> through the US State Department, see below: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for >>>> Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and >>>> Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >>>> >>>> November 8, 2013 >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Department of State >>>> >>>> *Public Notice* >>>> >>>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for >>>> Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe >>>> and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >>>> >>>> *SUMMARY* >>>> >>>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a >>>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting >>>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and >>>> rule of law in Europe and Eurasia. >>>> >>>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * >>>> *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * >>>> *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in >>>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your >>>> application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal >>>> Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, >>>> available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< >>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. >>>> * >>>> >>>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* >>>> >>>> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program >>>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the >>>> following issues: >>>> >>>> *Moldova* >>>> >>>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 >>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of >>>> minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, >>>> economic and political conditions. This program should focus on >>>> one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or >>>> Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group >>>> and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or >>>> other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the >>>> three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals >>>> which address more than one of the categories. >>>> >>>> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on >>>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local >>>> and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. >>>> Activities could include, but are not limited to: training >>>> minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in >>>> political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making >>>> process; providing opportunities for participants to network with >>>> other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional >>>> civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders >>>> and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement, >>>> organizational management, or communication skills. >>>> >>>> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on >>>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in >>>> Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, >>>> tolerance, and understanding through components such as >>>> inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The >>>> program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures >>>> and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with >>>> the majority group in joint activities. >>>> >>>> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving >>>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through >>>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer >>>> camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The >>>> program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms >>>> of educational opportunities and outcomes. >>>> >>>> *Turkey* >>>> >>>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately >>>> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of >>>> civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase >>>> citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and >>>> participate in the political process. The program should support >>>> civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions, >>>> the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and >>>> educate citizens on their right to participate in the political >>>> process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil >>>> society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices, >>>> including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for >>>> respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability. >>>> Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement >>>> in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to >>>> educate their constituents and the general populace on >>>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their >>>> government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. >>>> Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of >>>> outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens >>>> expectations for political participation. Successful proposals >>>> will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political >>>> environment for civil society in Turkey and an established >>>> ability to work with diverse civil society groups. >>>> >>>> *Azerbaijan* >>>> >>>> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 >>>> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil >>>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for >>>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program >>>> will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to >>>> promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory >>>> democratic system of government. The program should also support >>>> the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption >>>> advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in >>>> increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best >>>> practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of >>>> law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and >>>> NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to: >>>> technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and >>>> human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in >>>> effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to >>>> encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by >>>> citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and >>>> activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or >>>> fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s >>>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized >>>> grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and >>>> grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability >>>> and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a >>>> successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a >>>> strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in >>>> Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional >>>> independent civil society. >>>> >>>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* >>>> >>>> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission >>>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at >>>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< >>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> >>>> . >>>> >>>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any >>>> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this >>>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). >>>> >>>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL >>>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested >>>> section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages >>>> organizations to use the given space effectively. >>>> >>>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one >>>> per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries >>>> and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals >>>> that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than >>>> the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically >>>> ineligible.* >>>> >>>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive >>>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* >>>> or *www.grants.gov* >>>> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before >>>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions >>>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission >>>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of >>>> submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in >>>> the solicitation and this document. >>>> >>>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that >>>> proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* >>>> * or **www.grants.gov* >>>> *in their entirety. DRL bears no >>>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or >>>> conversion processes.* >>>> >>>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. >>>> Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not >>>> discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review >>>> process has been completed. >>>> >>>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will >>>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* >>>> . >>>> >>>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* >>>> >>>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the >>>> organization or other sources, such as public-private >>>> partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a >>>> strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not >>>> be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, >>>> technology, or science- related projects unless they have an >>>> explicit component related to the requested program objectives >>>> listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic >>>> development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is >>>> strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be >>>> outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative. >>>> >>>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, >>>> for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated >>>> terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of >>>> government. >>>> >>>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be >>>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information >>>> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be >>>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award >>>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the >>>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in >>>> accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. >>>> >>>> This request for proposals will appear on >>>> *www.grantosolutions.gov*or >>>> *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s >>>> website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* . >>>> >>>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* >>>> >>>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please >>>> feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* >>>> . Once the deadline has passed, State >>>> Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at >>>> embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with >>>> applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed. >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Stay connected with the State Department: >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chlebrum at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 04:02:55 2013 From: chlebrum at gmail.com (chlebrum .) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:02:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> Message-ID: +1 2013/11/9 Norbert Bollow > I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to > what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a > member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against > a wall and shooting them". > > Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality > of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding > relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US > government? > > I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried > to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a > related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That > led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which > I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in > Bali. > > However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in > Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected > the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed. > > Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other > countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next > year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly. > > There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one > does not want to be an accomplice through silence. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530 > schrieb Anja Kovacs : > > > Norbert, > > > > As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge > > the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global > > North. > > > > With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite > > unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as > > you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity > > of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South, > > have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they > > face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go, > > those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that > > nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing > > that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an > > international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted" > > position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The > > salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite > > allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of > > decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite > > intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the > > colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we > > are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis > > of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite > > different. > > > > While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of > > funding with people in this community (including in the steering > > committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if > > they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations, > > everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and > > privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are > > not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to > > question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip > > ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've > > ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is > > only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends > > who provided just that environment. > > > > And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am > > prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should > > take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this > > conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits. > > > > I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have > > been altered quite radically along these lines. > > > > Thanks and best regards, > > Anja > > > > > > > > On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering > > > Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and > > > to the coordinators of the IGC > > > > > > > > > I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, > > > when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as > > > potentially highly problematic. > > > > > > Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at > > > least, shaping and directing that capacity. > > > > > > People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes > > > cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters > > > that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic > > > interests. > > > > > > For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively > > > disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps > > > such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a > > > clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. > > > > > > Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering > > > committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the > > > coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial > > > relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project > > > where a US government agency is among the funders. > > > > > > > > > For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding > > > relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I > > > have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships > > > in the future. > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > > > > Sala wrote: > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to > > > > strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available > > > > through the US State Department, see below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for > > > > Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and > > > > Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > > > > > > > > November 8, 2013 > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Department of State > > > > > > > > *Public Notice* > > > > > > > > *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for > > > > Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe > > > > and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > > > > > > > > *SUMMARY* > > > > > > > > The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a > > > > Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting > > > > proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and > > > > rule of law in Europe and Eurasia. > > > > > > > > *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * > > > > *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * > > > > *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in > > > > order to obtain a username and password to submit your > > > > application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal > > > > Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, > > > > available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< > > > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. > > > > * > > > > > > > > *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* > > > > > > > > DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program > > > > concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the > > > > following issues: > > > > > > > > *Moldova* > > > > > > > > *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 > > > > available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of > > > > minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, > > > > economic and political conditions. This program should focus on > > > > one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or > > > > Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group > > > > and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or > > > > other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the > > > > three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals > > > > which address more than one of the categories. > > > > > > > > *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on > > > > developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local > > > > and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. > > > > Activities could include, but are not limited to: training > > > > minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in > > > > political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making > > > > process; providing opportunities for participants to network with > > > > other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional > > > > civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders > > > > and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement, > > > > organizational management, or communication skills. > > > > > > > > *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on > > > > minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in > > > > Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, > > > > tolerance, and understanding through components such as > > > > inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The > > > > program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures > > > > and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with > > > > the majority group in joint activities. > > > > > > > > *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving > > > > educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through > > > > activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer > > > > camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The > > > > program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms > > > > of educational opportunities and outcomes. > > > > > > > > *Turkey* > > > > > > > > *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately > > > > $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of > > > > civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase > > > > citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and > > > > participate in the political process. The program should support > > > > civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions, > > > > the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and > > > > educate citizens on their right to participate in the political > > > > process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil > > > > society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices, > > > > including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for > > > > respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability. > > > > Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement > > > > in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to > > > > educate their constituents and the general populace on > > > > fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their > > > > government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. > > > > Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of > > > > outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens > > > > expectations for political participation. Successful proposals > > > > will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political > > > > environment for civil society in Turkey and an established > > > > ability to work with diverse civil society groups. > > > > > > > > *Azerbaijan* > > > > > > > > *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 > > > > available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil > > > > society in enhancing government accountability and respect for > > > > fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program > > > > will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to > > > > promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory > > > > democratic system of government. The program should also support > > > > the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption > > > > advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in > > > > increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best > > > > practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of > > > > law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and > > > > NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to: > > > > technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and > > > > human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in > > > > effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to > > > > encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by > > > > citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and > > > > activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or > > > > fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s > > > > regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized > > > > grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and > > > > grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability > > > > and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a > > > > successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a > > > > strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in > > > > Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional > > > > independent civil society. > > > > > > > > *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* > > > > > > > > Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission > > > > Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at > > > > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< > > > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> > > > > . > > > > > > > > Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any > > > > time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this > > > > document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). > > > > > > > > To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL > > > > Review Committee will review the first page of the requested > > > > section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages > > > > organizations to use the given space effectively. > > > > > > > > An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one > > > > per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries > > > > and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals > > > > that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than > > > > the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically > > > > ineligible.* > > > > > > > > Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive > > > > electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* > > > > or *www.grants.gov* > > > > by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before > > > > 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions > > > > contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission > > > > Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of > > > > submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in > > > > the solicitation and this document. > > > > > > > > *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that > > > > proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* > > > > * or **www.grants.gov* > > > > *in their entirety. DRL bears no > > > > responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or > > > > conversion processes.* > > > > > > > > Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. > > > > Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not > > > > discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review > > > > process has been completed. > > > > > > > > *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will > > > > need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* > > > > . > > > > > > > > *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* > > > > > > > > Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the > > > > organization or other sources, such as public-private > > > > partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a > > > > strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not > > > > be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, > > > > technology, or science- related projects unless they have an > > > > explicit component related to the requested program objectives > > > > listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic > > > > development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is > > > > strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be > > > > outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative. > > > > > > > > DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, > > > > for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated > > > > terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of > > > > government. > > > > > > > > The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be > > > > modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information > > > > provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be > > > > binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award > > > > commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the > > > > right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in > > > > accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. > > > > > > > > This request for proposals will appear on > > > > *www.grantosolutions.gov*or > > > > *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s > > > > website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* . > > > > > > > > *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* > > > > > > > > Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please > > > > feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* > > > > . Once the deadline has passed, State > > > > Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at > > > > embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with > > > > applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Stay connected with the State Department: > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 9 06:11:46 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 00:11:46 +1300 Subject: [governance] US lost its vote in UNESCO #Internet Governance Message-ID: Dear All, The US just lost its vote in UNESCO. See the Statement released by the US Gov: U.S. Mission to the United Nations: Statement on the Loss of U.S. Vote at UNESCO 11/08/2013 08:54 PM EST ------------------------------ AS DELIVERED Today the United States lost its vote in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) General Conference as a result of legislative restrictions that prohibit the U.S. from paying its dues. While these restrictions are motivated by concerns that we share, the loss of the United States' vote in UNESCO diminishes our influence within an organization that is looked to around the world for leadership on issues of importance to our country, including the rights of women and girls, Internet governance, freedom of the press, and the recognition and protection of cultural heritage. The Obama Administration has called upon Congress to approve legislative changes that would allow needed flexibility in the application of these statutory restrictions. U.S. leadership in UNESCO matters. As such, the United States will remain engaged with the organization in every possible capacity, including attending meetings, participating in debates, and maintaining our seat as an elected member of the Executive Board until 2015. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 9 06:34:31 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 00:34:31 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 7days deadline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] 1. Adame Peake 2. Ian Peter 3. x 4. x 5. x 6. x 7. x 8. x 9. x 10. x 11. x 12. x 13. x 14. x 15. x 16. x 17. x 18. x 19. x 20. x 21. x 22. x 23. x 24. x 25. x *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* 1. x 2. x 3. x 4. x 5. x 6. x 7. x 8. x 9. x 10. x 11. x 12. x 13. x 14. x 15. x 16. x 17. x 18. x On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All > > Further to Izumi Aizu's message about generating names for the MAG by 1 > December, 2013, this is an urgent call for both names of volunteers for > those who wish to be considered for the following:- > > 1)NomCom to appoint MAG > 2)Those who wish to be considered for selection for the MAG > > Please send in your expression of interest and clearly indicate it in the > Subject line > by stating either NomCom (MAG) or MAG Candidate > > For those wishing to be apply as MAG candidates, please send a brief about > yourself, a link to your CV and describe involvement in existing, current > IGF foras. Also list your possible conflicts of interest and declare any > interests if any. Also describe why you think you will make a good MAG > member and what value you can bring to the MAG and also to the IGC and > broader civil society. Describe principles and values you ascribe to. This > will help the NomCom in their selection process. Given the short time we > have, the call for names is open 7 days and will be closed immediately > after 7 days to give time to the NomCom to make their selection. This will > mean that the NomCom can start work on the 25th November, 2013. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > izumi > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Chengetai Masango > Date: 2013/11/7 > Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal > To: MAG List IGF > > > Dear All, > > Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on > the MAG renewal process for 2014. > The hard deadline for the submission of names is *1 December 2013*. > > For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder > group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating > the selection process would be appreciated. > > I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your > respective stakeholder groups. > > Best regards, > > Chengetai > > A separate NomCom mailing list will be created to faciltate the process. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Chengetai Masango > Date: 2013/11/7 > Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal > To: MAG List IGF > > > Dear All, > > Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on > the MAG renewal process for 2014. > The hard deadline for the submission of names is *1 December 2013*. > > For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder > group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating > the selection process would be appreciated. > > I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your > respective stakeholder groups. > > 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 06:34:47 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 07:34:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> Message-ID: Dear Norbert, I find this message to be very deeply disturbing for two reasons. The first is the specific mention “ a US government agency is among the funders”,. The second is the assumption that I am hearing in this message that the recipient of such funding is helpless to maintain their objectivity. (The fact that I hear this doesn't necessarily mean that you intended it) On the first point it seems to me that most if not all funders, not only US government agencies, have “their own agendas”, based on the particular value system, world view, of the funder. Are we to consider that accepting the funds indicates acceptance of the norms and the perspective of the funder? Is there only one funder about whom we need to exercise caution? On the second point, is it the case that the education system throughout the world has broken down to the extent that there is no more critical thinking but only passive acceptance? If there is no stipulation in the funding agreement that the fundee is bound to a particular attitude, is the fundee bound by a moral agreement to “follow the party line”? Do we consider that the fundee is in fact "bought"? If the call is for transparency, then the transparency should be unqualified. And at the top of any “capacity building” agenda should be the demand to build capacity in independent thought. After all both giving and accepting funds presents a risk. If the outcome is unsatisfactory for either party then neither is bound to a repeat. And the most important of all rights to the individual is free will. Best wishes Deirdre On 9 November 2013 00:24, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering > Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and > to the coordinators of the IGC > > > I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, > when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as > potentially highly problematic. > > Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at > least, shaping and directing that capacity. > > People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes > cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters that > could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic interests. > > For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively > disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps such > as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a clear > relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. > > Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering > committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the > coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial > relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project > where a US government agency is among the funders. > > > For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding relationship, > I've never had any such funding relationships, and I have no intention > of entering into any such funding relationships in the future. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Sala wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to > > strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available > > through the US State Department, see below: > > > > > > > > Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for Proposals: > > Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia > > (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > > > > November 8, 2013 > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Department of State > > > > *Public Notice* > > > > *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: > > *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia > > (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > > > > *SUMMARY* > > > > The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a > > Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting > > proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and rule > > of law in Europe and Eurasia. > > > > *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * > > *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * > > *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in > > order to obtain a username and password to submit your application. > > For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission > > Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at * > > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. > > * > > > > *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* > > > > DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program > > concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the > > following issues: > > > > *Moldova* > > > > *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 available):* > > DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of minorities in > > Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, economic and > > political conditions. This program should focus on one of three > > areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or Education. Proposals > > should focus on more than one minority group and may include the > > Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or other communities. > > Proposals should clearly indicate which of the three categories they > > will address. DRL also encourages proposals which address more than > > one of the categories. > > > > *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on > > developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local and > > national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. Activities > > could include, but are not limited to: training minority civic > > leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in political advocacy and to > > participate in the decision-making process; providing opportunities > > for participants to network with other minority leaders both within > > Moldova and through regional civil society networks; and targeting > > training for civic leaders and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights > > and enforcement, organizational management, or communication skills. > > > > *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on > > minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in Moldova. > > The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, tolerance, > > and understanding through components such as inter-ethnic youth > > activities or cross-cultural education. The program could raise > > awareness and knowledge of minority cultures and values. Proposals > > should involve minority interaction with the majority group in joint > > activities. > > > > *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving > > educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through > > activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer camps, > > internship opportunities, or language training. The program should > > focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms of educational > > opportunities and outcomes. > > > > *Turkey* > > > > *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately > > $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of civil > > society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase citizens’ > > awareness that they should be informed about and participate in the > > political process. The program should support civil society in > > advocating for stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, and > > protection of fundamental freedoms; and educate citizens on their > > right to participate in the political process. The program should > > build coalitions among diverse civil society groups and NGOs to bring > > together disparate voices, including traditionally marginalized > > groups, to advocate for respect for fundamental freedoms and > > government accountability. Activities should emphasize the value of > > civil society engagement in public policy debates and encourage these > > coalitions to educate their constituents and the general populace on > > fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their government > > accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. Proposals > > should take advantage of traditional and new methods of outreach to > > help citizens share their views and build citizens expectations for > > political participation. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a > > strong knowledge of the political environment for civil society in > > Turkey and an established ability to work with diverse civil society > > groups. > > > > *Azerbaijan* > > > > *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 > > available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil > > society in enhancing government accountability and respect for > > fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program will > > encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to promote > > an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory democratic system > > of government. The program should also support the efforts of civil > > society in human rights and anti-corruption advocacy, while assisting > > civil society leaders and NGOs in increased public outreach. > > Proposals should identify best practices in efforts to promote > > democratic reforms and rule of law, and assess the needs of > > independent democracy activists and NGOs. Program activities could > > include, but are not limited to: technical assistance to build the > > capacity of Azeri democracy and human rights activists and NGOs in > > key communities to engage in effective public outreach and advocacy; > > support for activities to encourage results-oriented, constructive > > debate and advocacy by citizens and civil society organizations; > > linking NGOs and activists advocating for justice, accountability > > and/or fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s > > regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized grants > > to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and grassroots > > organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability and/or > > fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a successful > > proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong > > knowledge of the environment for civil society in Azerbaijan and an > > established ability to work with regional independent civil society. > > > > *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* > > > > Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions > > (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at > > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> > > . > > > > Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any > > time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this > > document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). > > > > To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL > > Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section > > up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to > > use the given space effectively. > > > > An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one per > > country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries and/or > > themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals that request > > less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than the award ceiling > > ($500,000) may be deemed technically ineligible.* > > > > Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive > > electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* > > or *www.grants.gov* > > by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before > > 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions > > contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission > > Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of submission; > > and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the > > solicitation and this document. > > > > *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals > > have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* > > * or **www.grants.gov* > > *in their entirety. DRL bears no > > responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or > > conversion processes.* > > > > Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. Department of > > State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing > > proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed. > > > > *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will > > need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* > > . > > > > *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* > > > > Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the > > organization or other sources, such as public-private partnerships, > > will be highly considered. Projects that have a strong academic, > > research, conference, or dialogue focus will not be deemed > > competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, technology, or science- > > related projects unless they have an explicit component related to > > the requested program objectives listed above. Projects that focus on > > commercial law or economic development will be rated as > > non-competitive. Cost sharing is strongly encouraged, and cost > > sharing contributions should be outlined in the proposal budget and > > budget narrative. > > > > DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, for > > any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist > > organization, whether or not elected members of government. > > > > The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be > > modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information > > provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be > > binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award > > commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the > > right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance > > with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. > > > > This request for proposals will appear on > > *www.grantosolutions.gov*or > > *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s website, > > *www.state.gov/j/drl* . > > > > *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* > > > > Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please feel > > free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* > > . Once the deadline has passed, State Department > > officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at embassies overseas - > > may not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire > > proposal review process is completed. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Stay connected with the State Department: > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 9 06:53:49 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 17:23:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] US lost its vote in UNESCO #Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1423cb5e558.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> It is a diplomatic note and quite correct in what it says about the value of unesco. Quite a pity that politics on both sides vitiated what we till recently a proactive relationship. --srs (htc one x) On 9 November 2013 4:41:46 PM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > Dear All, > > The US just lost its vote in UNESCO. See the Statement released by the US > Gov: > > U.S. Mission to the United Nations: Statement on the Loss of U.S. Vote at > UNESCO > 11/08/2013 08:54 PM EST > > ------------------------------ > > AS DELIVERED > > Today the United States lost its vote in the United Nations Educational, > Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) General Conference as a > result of legislative restrictions that prohibit the U.S. from paying its > dues. While these restrictions are motivated by concerns that we share, > the loss of the United States' vote in UNESCO diminishes our influence > within an organization that is looked to around the world for leadership on > issues of importance to our country, including the rights of women and > girls, Internet governance, freedom of the press, and the recognition and > protection of cultural heritage. The Obama Administration has called upon > Congress to approve legislative changes that would allow needed flexibility > in the application of these statutory restrictions. > > U.S. leadership in UNESCO matters. As such, the United States will remain > engaged with the organization in every possible capacity, including > attending meetings, participating in debates, and maintaining our seat as > an elected member of the Executive Board until 2015. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 9 07:39:53 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 07:39:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering > Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and > to the coordinators of the IGC > > > I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, > when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as > potentially highly problematic. > > Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at > least, shaping and directing that capacity. > > People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes > cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters that > could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic interests. > > For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively > disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps such > as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a clear > relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. > > Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering > committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the > coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial > relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project > where a US government agency is among the funders. But any other government is ok? > > > For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding relationship, > I've never had any such funding relationships, and I have no intention > of entering into any such funding relationships in the future. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Sala wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to >> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available >> through the US State Department, see below: >> >> >> >> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for Proposals: >> Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia >> (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >> >> November 8, 2013 >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Department of State >> >> *Public Notice* >> >> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: >> *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia >> (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >> >> *SUMMARY* >> >> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a >> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting >> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and rule >> of law in Europe and Eurasia. >> >> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * >> *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * >> *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in >> order to obtain a username and password to submit your application. >> For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission >> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at * >> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm**. >> * >> >> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* >> >> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program >> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the >> following issues: >> >> *Moldova* >> >> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 available):* >> DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of minorities in >> Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, economic and >> political conditions. This program should focus on one of three >> areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or Education. Proposals >> should focus on more than one minority group and may include the >> Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or other communities. >> Proposals should clearly indicate which of the three categories they >> will address. DRL also encourages proposals which address more than >> one of the categories. >> >> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on >> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local and >> national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. Activities >> could include, but are not limited to: training minority civic >> leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in political advocacy and to >> participate in the decision-making process; providing opportunities >> for participants to network with other minority leaders both within >> Moldova and through regional civil society networks; and targeting >> training for civic leaders and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights >> and enforcement, organizational management, or communication skills. >> >> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on >> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in Moldova. >> The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, tolerance, >> and understanding through components such as inter-ethnic youth >> activities or cross-cultural education. The program could raise >> awareness and knowledge of minority cultures and values. Proposals >> should involve minority interaction with the majority group in joint >> activities. >> >> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving >> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through >> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer camps, >> internship opportunities, or language training. The program should >> focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms of educational >> opportunities and outcomes. >> >> *Turkey* >> >> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately >> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of civil >> society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase citizens’ >> awareness that they should be informed about and participate in the >> political process. The program should support civil society in >> advocating for stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, and >> protection of fundamental freedoms; and educate citizens on their >> right to participate in the political process. The program should >> build coalitions among diverse civil society groups and NGOs to bring >> together disparate voices, including traditionally marginalized >> groups, to advocate for respect for fundamental freedoms and >> government accountability. Activities should emphasize the value of >> civil society engagement in public policy debates and encourage these >> coalitions to educate their constituents and the general populace on >> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their government >> accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. Proposals >> should take advantage of traditional and new methods of outreach to >> help citizens share their views and build citizens expectations for >> political participation. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a >> strong knowledge of the political environment for civil society in >> Turkey and an established ability to work with diverse civil society >> groups. >> >> *Azerbaijan* >> >> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 >> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil >> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for >> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program will >> encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to promote >> an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory democratic system >> of government. The program should also support the efforts of civil >> society in human rights and anti-corruption advocacy, while assisting >> civil society leaders and NGOs in increased public outreach. >> Proposals should identify best practices in efforts to promote >> democratic reforms and rule of law, and assess the needs of >> independent democracy activists and NGOs. Program activities could >> include, but are not limited to: technical assistance to build the >> capacity of Azeri democracy and human rights activists and NGOs in >> key communities to engage in effective public outreach and advocacy; >> support for activities to encourage results-oriented, constructive >> debate and advocacy by citizens and civil society organizations; >> linking NGOs and activists advocating for justice, accountability >> and/or fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s >> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized grants >> to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and grassroots >> organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability and/or >> fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a successful >> proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong >> knowledge of the environment for civil society in Azerbaijan and an >> established ability to work with regional independent civil society. >> >> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* >> >> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions >> (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at >> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm* >> . >> >> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any >> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this >> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). >> >> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL >> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section >> up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to >> use the given space effectively. >> >> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one per >> country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries and/or >> themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals that request >> less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than the award ceiling >> ($500,000) may be deemed technically ineligible.* >> >> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive >> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* >> or *www.grants.gov* >> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before >> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions >> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission >> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of submission; >> and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the >> solicitation and this document. >> >> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals >> have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* >> * or **www.grants.gov* >> *in their entirety. DRL bears no >> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or >> conversion processes.* >> >> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. Department of >> State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing >> proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed. >> >> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will >> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* >> . >> >> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* >> >> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the >> organization or other sources, such as public-private partnerships, >> will be highly considered. Projects that have a strong academic, >> research, conference, or dialogue focus will not be deemed >> competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, technology, or science- >> related projects unless they have an explicit component related to >> the requested program objectives listed above. Projects that focus on >> commercial law or economic development will be rated as >> non-competitive. Cost sharing is strongly encouraged, and cost >> sharing contributions should be outlined in the proposal budget and >> budget narrative. >> >> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, for >> any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist >> organization, whether or not elected members of government. >> >> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be >> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information >> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be >> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award >> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the >> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance >> with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. >> >> This request for proposals will appear on >> *www.grantosolutions.gov*or >> *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s website, >> *www.state.gov/j/drl* . >> >> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* >> >> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please feel >> free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* >> . Once the deadline has passed, State Department >> officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at embassies overseas - >> may not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire >> proposal review process is completed. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Stay connected with the State Department: > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 9 07:56:36 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 18:26:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> Message-ID: <1423cef5c48.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> And what sort of Government funding? Ministry? Regulator? Government funded NGO (quango / gongo)? Multistakeholder group that includes government stakeholders? And as mctim asks, why specifically the usa instead of, say, Germany, or Burkina Faso for that matter? --srs (htc one x) On 9 November 2013 6:09:53 PM McTim wrote: > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering > > Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and > > to the coordinators of the IGC > > > > > > I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, > > when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as > > potentially highly problematic. > > > > Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at > > least, shaping and directing that capacity. > > > > People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes > > cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters that > > could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic interests. > > > > For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively > > disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps such > > as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a clear > > relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. > > > > Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering > > committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the > > coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial > > relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project > > where a US government agency is among the funders. > > > But any other government is ok? > > > > > > > > For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding relationship, > > I've never had any such funding relationships, and I have no intention > > of entering into any such funding relationships in the future. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > > > Sala wrote: > > > >> Dear All, > >> > >> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to > >> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available > >> through the US State Department, see below: > >> > >> > >> > >> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for Proposals: > >> Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia > >> (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > >> > >> November 8, 2013 > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Department of State > >> > >> *Public Notice* > >> > >> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: > >> *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia > >> (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > >> > >> *SUMMARY* > >> > >> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a > >> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting > >> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and rule > >> of law in Europe and Eurasia. > >> > >> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * > >> *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * > >> *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in > >> order to obtain a username and password to submit your application. > >> For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission > >> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at * > >> > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm**. > >> * > >> > >> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* > >> > >> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program > >> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the > >> following issues: > >> > >> *Moldova* > >> > >> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 available):* > >> DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of minorities in > >> Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, economic and > >> political conditions. This program should focus on one of three > >> areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or Education. Proposals > >> should focus on more than one minority group and may include the > >> Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or other communities. > >> Proposals should clearly indicate which of the three categories they > >> will address. DRL also encourages proposals which address more than > >> one of the categories. > >> > >> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on > >> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local and > >> national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. Activities > >> could include, but are not limited to: training minority civic > >> leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in political advocacy and to > >> participate in the decision-making process; providing opportunities > >> for participants to network with other minority leaders both within > >> Moldova and through regional civil society networks; and targeting > >> training for civic leaders and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights > >> and enforcement, organizational management, or communication skills. > >> > >> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on > >> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in Moldova. > >> The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, tolerance, > >> and understanding through components such as inter-ethnic youth > >> activities or cross-cultural education. The program could raise > >> awareness and knowledge of minority cultures and values. Proposals > >> should involve minority interaction with the majority group in joint > >> activities. > >> > >> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving > >> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through > >> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer camps, > >> internship opportunities, or language training. The program should > >> focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms of educational > >> opportunities and outcomes. > >> > >> *Turkey* > >> > >> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately > >> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of civil > >> society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase citizens’ > >> awareness that they should be informed about and participate in the > >> political process. The program should support civil society in > >> advocating for stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, and > >> protection of fundamental freedoms; and educate citizens on their > >> right to participate in the political process. The program should > >> build coalitions among diverse civil society groups and NGOs to bring > >> together disparate voices, including traditionally marginalized > >> groups, to advocate for respect for fundamental freedoms and > >> government accountability. Activities should emphasize the value of > >> civil society engagement in public policy debates and encourage these > >> coalitions to educate their constituents and the general populace on > >> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their government > >> accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. Proposals > >> should take advantage of traditional and new methods of outreach to > >> help citizens share their views and build citizens expectations for > >> political participation. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a > >> strong knowledge of the political environment for civil society in > >> Turkey and an established ability to work with diverse civil society > >> groups. > >> > >> *Azerbaijan* > >> > >> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 > >> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil > >> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for > >> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program will > >> encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to promote > >> an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory democratic system > >> of government. The program should also support the efforts of civil > >> society in human rights and anti-corruption advocacy, while assisting > >> civil society leaders and NGOs in increased public outreach. > >> Proposals should identify best practices in efforts to promote > >> democratic reforms and rule of law, and assess the needs of > >> independent democracy activists and NGOs. Program activities could > >> include, but are not limited to: technical assistance to build the > >> capacity of Azeri democracy and human rights activists and NGOs in > >> key communities to engage in effective public outreach and advocacy; > >> support for activities to encourage results-oriented, constructive > >> debate and advocacy by citizens and civil society organizations; > >> linking NGOs and activists advocating for justice, accountability > >> and/or fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s > >> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized grants > >> to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and grassroots > >> organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability and/or > >> fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a successful > >> proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong > >> knowledge of the environment for civil society in Azerbaijan and an > >> established ability to work with regional independent civil society. > >> > >> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* > >> > >> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions > >> (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at > >> > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm* > >> . > >> > >> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any > >> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this > >> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). > >> > >> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL > >> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section > >> up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to > >> use the given space effectively. > >> > >> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one per > >> country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries and/or > >> themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals that request > >> less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than the award ceiling > >> ($500,000) may be deemed technically ineligible.* > >> > >> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive > >> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* > >> or *www.grants.gov* > >> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before > >> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions > >> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission > >> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of submission; > >> and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the > >> solicitation and this document. > >> > >> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals > >> have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* > >> * or **www.grants.gov* > >> *in their entirety. DRL bears no > >> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or > >> conversion processes.* > >> > >> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. Department of > >> State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing > >> proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed. > >> > >> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will > >> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* > >> . > >> > >> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* > >> > >> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the > >> organization or other sources, such as public-private partnerships, > >> will be highly considered. Projects that have a strong academic, > >> research, conference, or dialogue focus will not be deemed > >> competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, technology, or science- > >> related projects unless they have an explicit component related to > >> the requested program objectives listed above. Projects that focus on > >> commercial law or economic development will be rated as > >> non-competitive. Cost sharing is strongly encouraged, and cost > >> sharing contributions should be outlined in the proposal budget and > >> budget narrative. > >> > >> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, for > >> any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist > >> organization, whether or not elected members of government. > >> > >> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be > >> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information > >> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be > >> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award > >> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the > >> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance > >> with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. > >> > >> This request for proposals will appear on > >> *www.grantosolutions.gov*or > >> *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s website, > >> *www.state.gov/j/drl* . > >> > >> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* > >> > >> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please feel > >> free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* > >> . Once the deadline has passed, State Department > >> officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at embassies overseas - > >> may not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire > >> proposal review process is completed. > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Stay connected with the State Department: > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 08:04:43 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 02:04:43 +1300 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <09A224C2-EFD3-4F87-9569-A41F58E79925@global-partners.co.uk> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <09A224C2-EFD3-4F87-9569-A41F58E79925@global-partners.co.uk> Message-ID: Andrew - I hope your partner is well and I wish your partner warm and positive energy and good health On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > I'm joining this thread from hospital where my partner has just had a > major operation - so this will be my only contribution. > > I did not deflect any conversation in Bali. I made it clear that I was > funded by the Ford Foundation but that I have no interest in others funding > sources. Anyone could taken the issue further - including you Norbert - but > no one did. > > I'm prepared to operate on the basis of good faith in others intentions > recognising that funding is very limited and very few organisations are > willing to support civil society - DRL being one if the most generous, > > Personally I'm not interested in imposing a requirement on people > contingent on their funding. > > I made the point in Bali that a more constructive approach would be to try > and raise money to fund BB participation costs obviating these concerns. > Maybe you'd like to help me with this Norbet? > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 9 Nov 2013, at 08:12, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: > > > > I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to > > what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a > > member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against > > a wall and shooting them". > > > > Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality > > of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding > > relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US > > government? > > > > I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried > > to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a > > related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That > > led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which > > I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in > > Bali. > > > > However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in > > Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected > > the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed. > > > > Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other > > countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next > > year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly. > > > > There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one > > does not want to be an accomplice through silence. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530 > > schrieb Anja Kovacs : > > > >> Norbert, > >> > >> As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge > >> the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global > >> North. > >> > >> With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite > >> unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as > >> you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity > >> of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South, > >> have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they > >> face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go, > >> those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that > >> nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing > >> that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an > >> international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted" > >> position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The > >> salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite > >> allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of > >> decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite > >> intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the > >> colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we > >> are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis > >> of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite > >> different. > >> > >> While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of > >> funding with people in this community (including in the steering > >> committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if > >> they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations, > >> everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and > >> privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are > >> not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to > >> question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip > >> ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've > >> ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is > >> only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends > >> who provided just that environment. > >> > >> And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am > >> prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should > >> take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this > >> conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits. > >> > >> I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have > >> been altered quite radically along these lines. > >> > >> Thanks and best regards, > >> Anja > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>> > >>> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering > >>> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and > >>> to the coordinators of the IGC > >>> > >>> > >>> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, > >>> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as > >>> potentially highly problematic. > >>> > >>> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at > >>> least, shaping and directing that capacity. > >>> > >>> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes > >>> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters > >>> that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic > >>> interests. > >>> > >>> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively > >>> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps > >>> such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a > >>> clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. > >>> > >>> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering > >>> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the > >>> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial > >>> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project > >>> where a US government agency is among the funders. > >>> > >>> > >>> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding > >>> relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I > >>> have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships > >>> in the future. > >>> > >>> Greetings, > >>> Norbert > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Sala wrote: > >>> > >>>> Dear All, > >>>> > >>>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to > >>>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available > >>>> through the US State Department, see below: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for > >>>> Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and > >>>> Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > >>>> > >>>> November 8, 2013 > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------ > >>>> > >>>> Department of State > >>>> > >>>> *Public Notice* > >>>> > >>>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for > >>>> Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe > >>>> and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > >>>> > >>>> *SUMMARY* > >>>> > >>>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a > >>>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting > >>>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and > >>>> rule of law in Europe and Eurasia. > >>>> > >>>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * > >>>> *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * > >>>> *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in > >>>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your > >>>> application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal > >>>> Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, > >>>> available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< > >>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. > >>>> * > >>>> > >>>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* > >>>> > >>>> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program > >>>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the > >>>> following issues: > >>>> > >>>> *Moldova* > >>>> > >>>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 > >>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of > >>>> minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, > >>>> economic and political conditions. This program should focus on > >>>> one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or > >>>> Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group > >>>> and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or > >>>> other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the > >>>> three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals > >>>> which address more than one of the categories. > >>>> > >>>> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on > >>>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local > >>>> and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. > >>>> Activities could include, but are not limited to: training > >>>> minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in > >>>> political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making > >>>> process; providing opportunities for participants to network with > >>>> other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional > >>>> civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders > >>>> and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement, > >>>> organizational management, or communication skills. > >>>> > >>>> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on > >>>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in > >>>> Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, > >>>> tolerance, and understanding through components such as > >>>> inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The > >>>> program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures > >>>> and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with > >>>> the majority group in joint activities. > >>>> > >>>> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving > >>>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through > >>>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer > >>>> camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The > >>>> program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms > >>>> of educational opportunities and outcomes. > >>>> > >>>> *Turkey* > >>>> > >>>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately > >>>> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of > >>>> civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase > >>>> citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and > >>>> participate in the political process. The program should support > >>>> civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions, > >>>> the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and > >>>> educate citizens on their right to participate in the political > >>>> process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil > >>>> society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices, > >>>> including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for > >>>> respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability. > >>>> Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement > >>>> in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to > >>>> educate their constituents and the general populace on > >>>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their > >>>> government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. > >>>> Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of > >>>> outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens > >>>> expectations for political participation. Successful proposals > >>>> will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political > >>>> environment for civil society in Turkey and an established > >>>> ability to work with diverse civil society groups. > >>>> > >>>> *Azerbaijan* > >>>> > >>>> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 > >>>> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil > >>>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for > >>>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program > >>>> will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to > >>>> promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory > >>>> democratic system of government. The program should also support > >>>> the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption > >>>> advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in > >>>> increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best > >>>> practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of > >>>> law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and > >>>> NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to: > >>>> technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and > >>>> human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in > >>>> effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to > >>>> encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by > >>>> citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and > >>>> activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or > >>>> fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s > >>>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized > >>>> grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and > >>>> grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability > >>>> and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a > >>>> successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a > >>>> strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in > >>>> Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional > >>>> independent civil society. > >>>> > >>>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* > >>>> > >>>> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission > >>>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at > >>>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< > >>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> > >>>> . > >>>> > >>>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any > >>>> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this > >>>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). > >>>> > >>>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL > >>>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested > >>>> section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages > >>>> organizations to use the given space effectively. > >>>> > >>>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one > >>>> per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries > >>>> and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals > >>>> that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than > >>>> the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically > >>>> ineligible.* > >>>> > >>>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive > >>>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* > >>>> or *www.grants.gov* > >>>> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before > >>>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions > >>>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission > >>>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of > >>>> submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in > >>>> the solicitation and this document. > >>>> > >>>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that > >>>> proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* > >>>> * or **www.grants.gov* > >>>> *in their entirety. DRL bears no > >>>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or > >>>> conversion processes.* > >>>> > >>>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. > >>>> Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not > >>>> discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review > >>>> process has been completed. > >>>> > >>>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will > >>>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* > >>>> . > >>>> > >>>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* > >>>> > >>>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the > >>>> organization or other sources, such as public-private > >>>> partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a > >>>> strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not > >>>> be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, > >>>> technology, or science- related projects unless they have an > >>>> explicit component related to the requested program objectives > >>>> listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic > >>>> development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is > >>>> strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be > >>>> outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative. > >>>> > >>>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, > >>>> for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated > >>>> terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of > >>>> government. > >>>> > >>>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be > >>>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information > >>>> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be > >>>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award > >>>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the > >>>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in > >>>> accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. > >>>> > >>>> This request for proposals will appear on > >>>> *www.grantosolutions.gov*or > >>>> *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s > >>>> website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* . > >>>> > >>>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* > >>>> > >>>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please > >>>> feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* > >>>> . Once the deadline has passed, State > >>>> Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at > >>>> embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with > >>>> applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------ > >>>> > >>>> Stay connected with the State Department: > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IRP mailing list > > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Nov 9 10:45:51 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 11:45:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> Message-ID: While I understand the inconvenience of De and accept the principle of her arguments, full transparency on the funding of civil society organizations is really a duty. And the point is not to make a value jugdment on the capacity of one organization to maintain independency of criteria in spite of receiving fund from one entity which does not share the same criteria but how much in terms of finance is this support compared to the total budget of that organization. Would you trust, for examples : - an organization dedicated to promote open source with 80% of funding from Microsoft? - an organization struggling against advertisment as the economic model for funding the Internet with 30% of funds from Google? - an organization working on privacy with a 25% of funding from US-AID? - an organization working on promoting muktistakeholderism funded at 90% by the Russian government? - an organization working for the promotion of English as lingua franca of the Internet funded 100% by Francophonie? - an organization working for the defense of whales funded at 80% by the Norway government (if it were Human Rights I will certainly in that case :-))? I wont, as a responsible civil organization manager, and this not an arbitrary value jugdment but just common sense apply to very sensitive matter. Ingenuity is not a good strategy in our area, indeed. While some of the examples I have selected are just funny (and did not mean to offend any group) and so absurd they are improbable, some others are probably happening in real life. So we need to exerce caution... This is why we do need to know where the funds of civil society organizations come from and I support Norbert's position (and accept we should find the most respectful expression of it). -- 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 11:07:02 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 01:07:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> Message-ID: Hello, I cannot speak for Anja but I may explain something, in many countries ,lets say not so democratic in the south, one of usual attacks from regimes or way to dismiss activists and NGOs is to accuse them to of getting funding from foreign sources and being their puppets. furthermore, like many mentioned previously, it is strange to focus USA , what about others countries? isn't it inconsistent? yes we need transparency and we can setup process for that : like statement of any conflict of interests when running for elections or updating such statement regularly.that is proof of good faith and trust. finally, to be cynical I am more concerned these days by positions defended by some from CS, positions I found damaging for us. And trust me they are not taking any funds from USG. Rafik Rafik Dammak @rafik "fight for the users" 2013/11/9 Norbert Bollow > I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to > what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a > member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against > a wall and shooting them". > > Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality > of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding > relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US > government? > > I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried > to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a > related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That > led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which > I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in > Bali. > > However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in > Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected > the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed. > > Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other > countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next > year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly. > > There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one > does not want to be an accomplice through silence. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530 > schrieb Anja Kovacs : > > > Norbert, > > > > As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge > > the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global > > North. > > > > With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite > > unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as > > you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity > > of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South, > > have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they > > face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go, > > those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that > > nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing > > that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an > > international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted" > > position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The > > salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite > > allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of > > decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite > > intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the > > colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we > > are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis > > of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite > > different. > > > > While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of > > funding with people in this community (including in the steering > > committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if > > they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations, > > everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and > > privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are > > not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to > > question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip > > ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've > > ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is > > only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends > > who provided just that environment. > > > > And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am > > prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should > > take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this > > conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits. > > > > I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have > > been altered quite radically along these lines. > > > > Thanks and best regards, > > Anja > > > > > > > > On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering > > > Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and > > > to the coordinators of the IGC > > > > > > > > > I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, > > > when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as > > > potentially highly problematic. > > > > > > Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at > > > least, shaping and directing that capacity. > > > > > > People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes > > > cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters > > > that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic > > > interests. > > > > > > For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively > > > disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps > > > such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a > > > clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. > > > > > > Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering > > > committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the > > > coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial > > > relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project > > > where a US government agency is among the funders. > > > > > > > > > For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding > > > relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I > > > have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships > > > in the future. > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > > > > Sala wrote: > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to > > > > strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available > > > > through the US State Department, see below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for > > > > Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and > > > > Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > > > > > > > > November 8, 2013 > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Department of State > > > > > > > > *Public Notice* > > > > > > > > *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for > > > > Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe > > > > and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > > > > > > > > *SUMMARY* > > > > > > > > The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a > > > > Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting > > > > proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and > > > > rule of law in Europe and Eurasia. > > > > > > > > *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * > > > > *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * > > > > *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in > > > > order to obtain a username and password to submit your > > > > application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal > > > > Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, > > > > available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< > > > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. > > > > * > > > > > > > > *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* > > > > > > > > DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program > > > > concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the > > > > following issues: > > > > > > > > *Moldova* > > > > > > > > *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 > > > > available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of > > > > minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, > > > > economic and political conditions. This program should focus on > > > > one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or > > > > Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group > > > > and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or > > > > other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the > > > > three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals > > > > which address more than one of the categories. > > > > > > > > *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on > > > > developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local > > > > and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. > > > > Activities could include, but are not limited to: training > > > > minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in > > > > political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making > > > > process; providing opportunities for participants to network with > > > > other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional > > > > civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders > > > > and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement, > > > > organizational management, or communication skills. > > > > > > > > *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on > > > > minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in > > > > Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, > > > > tolerance, and understanding through components such as > > > > inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The > > > > program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures > > > > and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with > > > > the majority group in joint activities. > > > > > > > > *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving > > > > educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through > > > > activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer > > > > camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The > > > > program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms > > > > of educational opportunities and outcomes. > > > > > > > > *Turkey* > > > > > > > > *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately > > > > $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of > > > > civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase > > > > citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and > > > > participate in the political process. The program should support > > > > civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions, > > > > the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and > > > > educate citizens on their right to participate in the political > > > > process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil > > > > society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices, > > > > including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for > > > > respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability. > > > > Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement > > > > in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to > > > > educate their constituents and the general populace on > > > > fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their > > > > government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. > > > > Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of > > > > outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens > > > > expectations for political participation. Successful proposals > > > > will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political > > > > environment for civil society in Turkey and an established > > > > ability to work with diverse civil society groups. > > > > > > > > *Azerbaijan* > > > > > > > > *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 > > > > available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil > > > > society in enhancing government accountability and respect for > > > > fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program > > > > will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to > > > > promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory > > > > democratic system of government. The program should also support > > > > the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption > > > > advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in > > > > increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best > > > > practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of > > > > law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and > > > > NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to: > > > > technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and > > > > human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in > > > > effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to > > > > encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by > > > > citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and > > > > activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or > > > > fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s > > > > regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized > > > > grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and > > > > grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability > > > > and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a > > > > successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a > > > > strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in > > > > Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional > > > > independent civil society. > > > > > > > > *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* > > > > > > > > Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission > > > > Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at > > > > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< > > > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> > > > > . > > > > > > > > Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any > > > > time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this > > > > document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). > > > > > > > > To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL > > > > Review Committee will review the first page of the requested > > > > section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages > > > > organizations to use the given space effectively. > > > > > > > > An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one > > > > per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries > > > > and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals > > > > that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than > > > > the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically > > > > ineligible.* > > > > > > > > Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive > > > > electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* > > > > or *www.grants.gov* > > > > by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before > > > > 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions > > > > contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission > > > > Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of > > > > submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in > > > > the solicitation and this document. > > > > > > > > *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that > > > > proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* > > > > * or **www.grants.gov* > > > > *in their entirety. DRL bears no > > > > responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or > > > > conversion processes.* > > > > > > > > Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. > > > > Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not > > > > discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review > > > > process has been completed. > > > > > > > > *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will > > > > need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* > > > > . > > > > > > > > *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* > > > > > > > > Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the > > > > organization or other sources, such as public-private > > > > partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a > > > > strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not > > > > be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, > > > > technology, or science- related projects unless they have an > > > > explicit component related to the requested program objectives > > > > listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic > > > > development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is > > > > strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be > > > > outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative. > > > > > > > > DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, > > > > for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated > > > > terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of > > > > government. > > > > > > > > The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be > > > > modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information > > > > provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be > > > > binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award > > > > commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the > > > > right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in > > > > accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. > > > > > > > > This request for proposals will appear on > > > > *www.grantosolutions.gov*or > > > > *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s > > > > website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* . > > > > > > > > *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* > > > > > > > > Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please > > > > feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* > > > > . Once the deadline has passed, State > > > > Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at > > > > embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with > > > > applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Stay connected with the State Department: > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Nov 9 13:46:48 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 19:46:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] I DISCLOSE In-Reply-To: References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Nov 9 15:16:08 2013 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 21:16:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 7days deadline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Having served already on the NomCom I’m now volunteering for the MAG. Would like to bring my experience and knowledge to the MAG table. Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 - Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Member Board of Trustees Internet Society - www.internetsociety.org Chair NPOC Policy Committee - ICANN - www.npoc.org Op 9-nov.-2013, om 12:34 heeft Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro het volgende geschreven: > Dear All, > > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > Adame Peake > Ian Peter > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All > > Further to Izumi Aizu's message about generating names for the MAG by 1 December, 2013, this is an urgent call for both names of volunteers for those who wish to be considered for the following:- > > 1)NomCom to appoint MAG > 2)Those who wish to be considered for selection for the MAG > > Please send in your expression of interest and clearly indicate it in the Subject line > by stating either NomCom (MAG) or MAG Candidate > > For those wishing to be apply as MAG candidates, please send a brief about yourself, a link to your CV and describe involvement in existing, current IGF foras. Also list your possible conflicts of interest and declare any interests if any. Also describe why you think you will make a good MAG member and what value you can bring to the MAG and also to the IGC and broader civil society. Describe principles and values you ascribe to. This will help the NomCom in their selection process. Given the short time we have, the call for names is open 7 days and will be closed immediately after 7 days to give time to the NomCom to make their selection. This will mean that the NomCom can start work on the 25th November, 2013. > > Kind Regards, > Sala >> izumi >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Chengetai Masango >> Date: 2013/11/7 >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal >> To: MAG List IGF >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on the MAG renewal process for 2014. The hard deadline for the submission of names is 1 December 2013. >> >> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating the selection process would be appreciated. >> >> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your respective stakeholder groups. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Chengetai >> > > A separate NomCom mailing list will be created to faciltate the process. > >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Chengetai Masango >> Date: 2013/11/7 >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal >> To: MAG List IGF >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on the MAG renewal process for 2014. The hard deadline for the submission of names is 1 December 2013. >> >> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating the selection process would be appreciated. >> >> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your respective stakeholder groups. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Chengetai >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Nov 9 15:33:51 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 22:33:51 +0200 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> Dear all Overall I share Anja's views on this, matter. We are in these spaces together because of a basic assumption that even if the organisations and individuals who are active in IGF, IRP and Best Bits do not always agree, and have different approaches to their work, we also share some common concerns and interests. Perhaps, particularly in IGC, the diversity of approaches and beliefs has reached a point where any kind of cohesion, even on a few specific issues, is not achievable. Demanding 'disclosure' of funding sources is not going to help fix this. In Best Bits we are still managing to do quite a lot of work together, draft statements, and discuss issues constructively. Transparency of funding for civil society organisations is indeed important, but I feel that raising it here is counter-productive. Most civil society organisations do disclose their funding publicly in their annual reports and financial statements, and these can usually be found on their websites. Why not simply visit those to find out if you are interested in who funds organisations in these spaces? But there are also some who don't disclose all their sources of funding publicly because of constraints in their countries (as has been said in this thread already). We have to respect that. Not everyone has the same degree of choice in who their funding partners are. Anyone who wants to look at APC's sources of funding should simply visit our annual report. The list of partners/donors for 2012 is on page 67 of the 2012 report (which covers our 2009-12 strategic plan). http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_ProgressReport20092012.pdf APC itself does not receive any funding from the US Dept of State - but some of our members do - either directly or through partners. Some of them they work in countries where they really have very little choice as there are so few sources of funds for internet-related human rights work. I think Sala's message about funding opportunities should be seen in that light. I am not denying that accepting such funding can be problematic. My view is that rather than 'blacklisting' people because of where their funding comes from, I think we should show support to one another - and when possible form partnerships to increase the diversity of funding in the sector, and reduce dependency on single sources, particularly sources that are very directly linked to potentially problematic political agendas. Being overly dependent on one source of funding is never wise, particularly (but not only) when the source is a government. Certainly if some of us were to form partnerships on projects, we would first learn more about one another's donor policies and practices. But IGC, IRP, and Best Bits are discussions spaces and loose coalitions. They don't require this kind of formality. Like Jeremy I believe we should always assume good faith, and not be too judgemental. Nevertheless, I do think that frank conversations about funding politics are important. But rather than make these spaces (particularly IGC) feel even more unsafe than they do already, we should try to build the kind of trust where we can share (even if offlist) risks and experiences related to the complexities about donor relationships. Anriette On 09/11/2013 10:42, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I am all for transparency, but there is little to no completely clean > money for civil society, and managing that fact is something we all > handle in different ways. I would always assume good faith and not get > too judgmental about each others' funding sources without knowing how > any conflicts of interest are managed. > > Speaking personally I am prepared to disclose that there are no donors > currently supporting my work on IG, but it is of course supported by > Consumers International as my employer. The other projects that I work > on are supported by Open Society Foundations, IDRC and a German > government agency. > > This shouldn't be taken to set a precedent for anyone else to detail > how they are funded, because there may be any number of constraints > that would make them feel unsafe or uneasy about disclosing that on a > public list. > > (Replying from my phone.) > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek > host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org |awk -F! > '{print $3}' > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > On 9 Nov 2013, at 4:11 pm, Norbert Bollow > wrote: > >> I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to >> what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a >> member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against >> a wall and shooting them". >> >> Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality >> of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding >> relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US >> government? >> >> I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried >> to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a >> related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That >> led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which >> I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in >> Bali. >> >> However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in >> Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected >> the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed. >> >> Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other >> countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next >> year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly. >> >> There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one >> does not want to be an accomplice through silence. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530 >> schrieb Anja Kovacs > >: >> >>> Norbert, >>> >>> As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge >>> the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global >>> North. >>> >>> With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite >>> unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as >>> you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity >>> of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South, >>> have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they >>> face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go, >>> those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that >>> nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing >>> that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an >>> international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted" >>> position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The >>> salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite >>> allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of >>> decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite >>> intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the >>> colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we >>> are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis >>> of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite >>> different. >>> >>> While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of >>> funding with people in this community (including in the steering >>> committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if >>> they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations, >>> everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and >>> privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are >>> not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to >>> question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip >>> ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've >>> ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is >>> only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends >>> who provided just that environment. >>> >>> And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am >>> prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should >>> take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this >>> conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits. >>> >>> I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have >>> been altered quite radically along these lines. >>> >>> Thanks and best regards, >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering >>>> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and >>>> to the coordinators of the IGC >>>> >>>> >>>> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, >>>> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as >>>> potentially highly problematic. >>>> >>>> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at >>>> least, shaping and directing that capacity. >>>> >>>> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes >>>> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters >>>> that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic >>>> interests. >>>> >>>> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively >>>> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps >>>> such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a >>>> clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. >>>> >>>> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering >>>> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the >>>> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial >>>> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project >>>> where a US government agency is among the funders. >>>> >>>> >>>> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding >>>> relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I >>>> have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships >>>> in the future. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sala >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to >>>>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available >>>>> through the US State Department, see below: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for >>>>> Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and >>>>> Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >>>>> >>>>> November 8, 2013 >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Department of State >>>>> >>>>> *Public Notice* >>>>> >>>>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for >>>>> Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe >>>>> and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >>>>> >>>>> *SUMMARY* >>>>> >>>>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a >>>>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting >>>>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and >>>>> rule of law in Europe and Eurasia. >>>>> >>>>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * >>>>> *www.grantsolutions.gov * >>>>> * or * >>>>> *www.grants.gov * * >>>>> as soon as possible in >>>>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your >>>>> application. For more information, please see DRL's Proposal >>>>> Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, >>>>> available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< >>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. >>>>> * >>>>> >>>>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* >>>>> >>>>> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program >>>>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the >>>>> following issues: >>>>> >>>>> *Moldova* >>>>> >>>>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 >>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of >>>>> minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, >>>>> economic and political conditions. This program should focus on >>>>> one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or >>>>> Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group >>>>> and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or >>>>> other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the >>>>> three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals >>>>> which address more than one of the categories. >>>>> >>>>> *Civic Engagement* -- Civic Engagement proposals should focus on >>>>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local >>>>> and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. >>>>> Activities could include, but are not limited to: training >>>>> minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in >>>>> political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making >>>>> process; providing opportunities for participants to network with >>>>> other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional >>>>> civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders >>>>> and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement, >>>>> organizational management, or communication skills. >>>>> >>>>> *Social Inclusion* -- Social Inclusion proposals should focus on >>>>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in >>>>> Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, >>>>> tolerance, and understanding through components such as >>>>> inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The >>>>> program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures >>>>> and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with >>>>> the majority group in joint activities. >>>>> >>>>> *Education* -- Education proposals should focus on improving >>>>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through >>>>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer >>>>> camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The >>>>> program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms >>>>> of educational opportunities and outcomes. >>>>> >>>>> *Turkey* >>>>> >>>>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately >>>>> $500,000 available):* DRL's objective is to build the voice of >>>>> civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase >>>>> citizens' awareness that they should be informed about and >>>>> participate in the political process. The program should support >>>>> civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions, >>>>> the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and >>>>> educate citizens on their right to participate in the political >>>>> process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil >>>>> society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices, >>>>> including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for >>>>> respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability. >>>>> Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement >>>>> in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to >>>>> educate their constituents and the general populace on >>>>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their >>>>> government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. >>>>> Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of >>>>> outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens >>>>> expectations for political participation. Successful proposals >>>>> will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political >>>>> environment for civil society in Turkey and an established >>>>> ability to work with diverse civil society groups. >>>>> >>>>> *Azerbaijan* >>>>> >>>>> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 >>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the role of civil >>>>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for >>>>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program >>>>> will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to >>>>> promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory >>>>> democratic system of government. The program should also support >>>>> the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption >>>>> advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in >>>>> increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best >>>>> practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of >>>>> law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and >>>>> NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to: >>>>> technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and >>>>> human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in >>>>> effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to >>>>> encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by >>>>> citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and >>>>> activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or >>>>> fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan's >>>>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized >>>>> grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and >>>>> grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability >>>>> and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a >>>>> successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a >>>>> strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in >>>>> Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional >>>>> independent civil society. >>>>> >>>>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* >>>>> >>>>> Please refer directly to DRL's posted Proposal Submission >>>>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at >>>>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< >>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any >>>>> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this >>>>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). >>>>> >>>>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL >>>>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested >>>>> section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages >>>>> organizations to use the given space effectively. >>>>> >>>>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one >>>>> per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries >>>>> and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals >>>>> that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than >>>>> the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically >>>>> ineligible.* >>>>> >>>>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive >>>>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov >>>>> * >>>>> or *www.grants.gov >>>>> * >>>>> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before >>>>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions >>>>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission >>>>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of >>>>> submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in >>>>> the solicitation and this document. >>>>> >>>>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that >>>>> proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov >>>>> * >>>>> * or **www.grants.gov >>>>> * >>>>> *in their entirety. DRL bears no >>>>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or >>>>> conversion processes.* >>>>> >>>>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. >>>>> Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not >>>>> discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review >>>>> process has been completed. >>>>> >>>>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will >>>>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov >>>>> * >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* >>>>> >>>>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the >>>>> organization or other sources, such as public-private >>>>> partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a >>>>> strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not >>>>> be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, >>>>> technology, or science- related projects unless they have an >>>>> explicit component related to the requested program objectives >>>>> listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic >>>>> development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is >>>>> strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be >>>>> outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative. >>>>> >>>>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, >>>>> for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated >>>>> terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of >>>>> government. >>>>> >>>>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be >>>>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information >>>>> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be >>>>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award >>>>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the >>>>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in >>>>> accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. >>>>> >>>>> This request for proposals will appear on >>>>> *www.grantosolutions.gov >>>>> *or >>>>> *www.grants.gov * >>>>> and DRL's >>>>> website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* >>>>> >>>>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please >>>>> feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov >>>>> * >>>>> >. Once the >>>>> deadline has passed, State >>>>> Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at >>>>> embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with >>>>> applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Stay connected with the State Department: >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 16:12:47 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 16:12:47 -0500 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> Message-ID: <03E54761-277E-4993-8E37-AA45EF43C040@gmail.com> Thanks, Anriette, for being a voice of reason! George On Nov 9, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Overall I share Anja's views on this, matter. We are in these spaces together because of a basic assumption that even if the organisations and individuals who are active in IGF, IRP and Best Bits do not always agree, and have different approaches to their work, we also share some common concerns and interests. > > Perhaps, particularly in IGC, the diversity of approaches and beliefs has reached a point where any kind of cohesion, even on a few specific issues, is not achievable. Demanding 'disclosure' of funding sources is not going to help fix this. In Best Bits we are still managing to do quite a lot of work together, draft statements, and discuss issues constructively. > > Transparency of funding for civil society organisations is indeed important, but I feel that raising it here is counter-productive. Most civil society organisations do disclose their funding publicly in their annual reports and financial statements, and these can usually be found on their websites. Why not simply visit those to find out if you are interested in who funds organisations in these spaces? But there are also some who don't disclose all their sources of funding publicly because of constraints in their countries (as has been said in this thread already). We have to respect that. Not everyone has the same degree of choice in who their funding partners are. > > Anyone who wants to look at APC's sources of funding should simply visit our annual report. The list of partners/donors for 2012 is on page 67 of the 2012 report (which covers our 2009-12 strategic plan). http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_ProgressReport20092012.pdf > > APC itself does not receive any funding from the US Dept of State - but some of our members do - either directly or through partners. Some of them they work in countries where they really have very little choice as there are so few sources of funds for internet-related human rights work. I think Sala's message about funding opportunities should be seen in that light. > > I am not denying that accepting such funding can be problematic. My view is that rather than 'blacklisting' people because of where their funding comes from, I think we should show support to one another - and when possible form partnerships to increase the diversity of funding in the sector, and reduce dependency on single sources, particularly sources that are very directly linked to potentially problematic political agendas. Being overly dependent on one source of funding is never wise, particularly (but not only) when the source is a government. Certainly if some of us were to form partnerships on projects, we would first learn more about one another's donor policies and practices. But IGC, IRP, and Best Bits are discussions spaces and loose coalitions. They don't require this kind of formality. > > Like Jeremy I believe we should always assume good faith, and not be too judgemental. Nevertheless, I do think that frank conversations about funding politics are important. But rather than make these spaces (particularly IGC) feel even more unsafe than they do already, we should try to build the kind of trust where we can share (even if offlist) risks and experiences related to the complexities about donor relationships. > > Anriette > > > > > > On 09/11/2013 10:42, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> I am all for transparency, but there is little to no completely clean money for civil society, and managing that fact is something we all handle in different ways. I would always assume good faith and not get too judgmental about each others' funding sources without knowing how any conflicts of interest are managed. >> >> Speaking personally I am prepared to disclose that there are no donors currently supporting my work on IG, but it is of course supported by Consumers International as my employer. The other projects that I work on are supported by Open Society Foundations, IDRC and a German government agency. >> >> This shouldn't be taken to set a precedent for anyone else to detail how they are funded, because there may be any number of constraints that would make them feel unsafe or uneasy about disclosing that on a public list. >> >> (Replying from my phone.) >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek >> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' >> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> >> >> >> On 9 Nov 2013, at 4:11 pm, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to >>> what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a >>> member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against >>> a wall and shooting them". >>> >>> Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality >>> of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding >>> relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US >>> government? >>> >>> I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried >>> to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a >>> related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That >>> led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which >>> I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in >>> Bali. >>> >>> However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in >>> Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected >>> the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed. >>> >>> Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other >>> countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next >>> year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly. >>> >>> There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one >>> does not want to be an accomplice through silence. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530 >>> schrieb Anja Kovacs : >>> >>>> Norbert, >>>> >>>> As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge >>>> the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global >>>> North. >>>> >>>> With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite >>>> unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as >>>> you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity >>>> of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South, >>>> have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they >>>> face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go, >>>> those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that >>>> nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing >>>> that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an >>>> international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted" >>>> position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The >>>> salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite >>>> allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of >>>> decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite >>>> intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the >>>> colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we >>>> are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis >>>> of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite >>>> different. >>>> >>>> While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of >>>> funding with people in this community (including in the steering >>>> committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if >>>> they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations, >>>> everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and >>>> privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are >>>> not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to >>>> question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip >>>> ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've >>>> ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is >>>> only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends >>>> who provided just that environment. >>>> >>>> And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am >>>> prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should >>>> take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this >>>> conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits. >>>> >>>> I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have >>>> been altered quite radically along these lines. >>>> >>>> Thanks and best regards, >>>> Anja >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> >>>>> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering >>>>> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and >>>>> to the coordinators of the IGC >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, >>>>> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as >>>>> potentially highly problematic. >>>>> >>>>> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at >>>>> least, shaping and directing that capacity. >>>>> >>>>> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes >>>>> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters >>>>> that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic >>>>> interests. >>>>> >>>>> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively >>>>> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps >>>>> such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a >>>>> clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. >>>>> >>>>> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering >>>>> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the >>>>> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial >>>>> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project >>>>> where a US government agency is among the funders. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding >>>>> relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I >>>>> have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships >>>>> in the future. >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Norbert >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sala wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to >>>>>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available >>>>>> through the US State Department, see below: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for >>>>>> Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and >>>>>> Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >>>>>> >>>>>> November 8, 2013 >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> Department of State >>>>>> >>>>>> *Public Notice* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for >>>>>> Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe >>>>>> and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >>>>>> >>>>>> *SUMMARY* >>>>>> >>>>>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a >>>>>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting >>>>>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and >>>>>> rule of law in Europe and Eurasia. >>>>>> >>>>>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * >>>>>> *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * >>>>>> *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in >>>>>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your >>>>>> application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal >>>>>> Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, >>>>>> available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< >>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. >>>>>> * >>>>>> >>>>>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* >>>>>> >>>>>> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program >>>>>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the >>>>>> following issues: >>>>>> >>>>>> *Moldova* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 >>>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of >>>>>> minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, >>>>>> economic and political conditions. This program should focus on >>>>>> one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or >>>>>> Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group >>>>>> and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or >>>>>> other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the >>>>>> three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals >>>>>> which address more than one of the categories. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on >>>>>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local >>>>>> and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. >>>>>> Activities could include, but are not limited to: training >>>>>> minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in >>>>>> political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making >>>>>> process; providing opportunities for participants to network with >>>>>> other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional >>>>>> civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders >>>>>> and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement, >>>>>> organizational management, or communication skills. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on >>>>>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in >>>>>> Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, >>>>>> tolerance, and understanding through components such as >>>>>> inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The >>>>>> program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures >>>>>> and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with >>>>>> the majority group in joint activities. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving >>>>>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through >>>>>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer >>>>>> camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The >>>>>> program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms >>>>>> of educational opportunities and outcomes. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Turkey* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately >>>>>> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of >>>>>> civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase >>>>>> citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and >>>>>> participate in the political process. The program should support >>>>>> civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions, >>>>>> the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and >>>>>> educate citizens on their right to participate in the political >>>>>> process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil >>>>>> society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices, >>>>>> including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for >>>>>> respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability. >>>>>> Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement >>>>>> in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to >>>>>> educate their constituents and the general populace on >>>>>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their >>>>>> government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. >>>>>> Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of >>>>>> outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens >>>>>> expectations for political participation. Successful proposals >>>>>> will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political >>>>>> environment for civil society in Turkey and an established >>>>>> ability to work with diverse civil society groups. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Azerbaijan* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 >>>>>> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil >>>>>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for >>>>>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program >>>>>> will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to >>>>>> promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory >>>>>> democratic system of government. The program should also support >>>>>> the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption >>>>>> advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in >>>>>> increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best >>>>>> practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of >>>>>> law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and >>>>>> NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to: >>>>>> technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and >>>>>> human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in >>>>>> effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to >>>>>> encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by >>>>>> citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and >>>>>> activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or >>>>>> fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s >>>>>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized >>>>>> grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and >>>>>> grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability >>>>>> and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a >>>>>> successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a >>>>>> strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in >>>>>> Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional >>>>>> independent civil society. >>>>>> >>>>>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* >>>>>> >>>>>> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission >>>>>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at >>>>>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< >>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any >>>>>> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this >>>>>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). >>>>>> >>>>>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL >>>>>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested >>>>>> section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages >>>>>> organizations to use the given space effectively. >>>>>> >>>>>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one >>>>>> per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries >>>>>> and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals >>>>>> that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than >>>>>> the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically >>>>>> ineligible.* >>>>>> >>>>>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive >>>>>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* >>>>>> or *www.grants.gov* >>>>>> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before >>>>>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions >>>>>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission >>>>>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of >>>>>> submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in >>>>>> the solicitation and this document. >>>>>> >>>>>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that >>>>>> proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* >>>>>> * or **www.grants.gov* >>>>>> *in their entirety. DRL bears no >>>>>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or >>>>>> conversion processes.* >>>>>> >>>>>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. >>>>>> Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not >>>>>> discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review >>>>>> process has been completed. >>>>>> >>>>>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will >>>>>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* >>>>>> >>>>>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the >>>>>> organization or other sources, such as public-private >>>>>> partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a >>>>>> strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not >>>>>> be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, >>>>>> technology, or science- related projects unless they have an >>>>>> explicit component related to the requested program objectives >>>>>> listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic >>>>>> development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is >>>>>> strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be >>>>>> outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative. >>>>>> >>>>>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, >>>>>> for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated >>>>>> terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of >>>>>> government. >>>>>> >>>>>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be >>>>>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information >>>>>> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be >>>>>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award >>>>>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the >>>>>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in >>>>>> accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. >>>>>> >>>>>> This request for proposals will appear on >>>>>> *www.grantosolutions.gov*or >>>>>> *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s >>>>>> website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* . >>>>>> >>>>>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* >>>>>> >>>>>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please >>>>>> feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* >>>>>> . Once the deadline has passed, State >>>>>> Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at >>>>>> embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with >>>>>> applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> Stay connected with the State Department: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 nb at bollow.ch Sat Nov 9 16:54:42 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 22:54:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> Message-ID: <20131109225442.44b1b129@quill> Deirdre Williams wrote: > I find this message to be very deeply disturbing for two reasons. > > The first is the specific mention “ a US government agency is among > the funders”,. Well the first several times that I brought up the issue of the importance of funding transparency in the context of how the BestBits process is steered, I was speaking more generally. Because I asked about how Andrew's work is funded, I've been sent (by one of the authors) a copy of a research paper on "capacity building" funding where the initial BestBits meeting (the one prior to the Baku IGF) is described as having been part of a capacity building project funded in part by the US government. Even though I was there, I am not able to judge the accuracy of that description. All I know is that 1) nothing of the sort was disclosed to the participants, 2) the content and outcome of that meeting turned out to be remarkably well-aligned with the geostrategic interests of the US government, 3) since then, BestBits has been institutionalized to some degree with a steering committee, where with the exception of Jeremy, the steering committee members haven't been responding to the requests for funding transparency in any way that could possibly inspire me with trust. At some point, when there is specific reason for being concerned but clearly strong reluctance to publicly disclose the relevant information, it becomes appropriate to bluntly ask specific, pointed questions. This is not about a value judgment it is not about some kinds of funding for civil society work being less ok than others. I hereby promise to everyone that anyone who discloses receiving some of their funding from US government sources, or other government sources, or industry sources, will not because of that in any way lose my respect. But I definitely think that there is something that needs to be addressed as a potential problem when --at a time when a significant part of what is going on in Internet governance is about how much surveillance power and other power is going to shift away from the US government-- that same government is --as Sala's posting shows-- seeking to have a central role in civil society "capacity building" at least in some countries. > The second is the assumption that I am hearing in this message that > the recipient of such funding is helpless to maintain their > objectivity. (The fact that I hear this doesn't necessarily mean that > you intended it) My relevant assumption or working hypothesis is: Human nature is such that when some someone's actual or potential funding may depend on not understanding something, that in many situations makes it very hard for the person to understand. I do not think that people are necessarily helpless in regard to this risk of partial loss of objectivity. Specifically in the civil society context, I believe that it helps to some extent already to have a strong policy of transparency in regard to funding sources. In regard to the important issue about the objectivity of the outcomes of group processes, I would suggest that key steps are to 1) ensure high diversity of funding sources among the participants in the group, 2) to use deliberative processes that are designed to make the key assumptions explicit and subject of conscious reflection, and 3) to have a culture in the coordinating group (or steering committee or whatever it's called) that involves members of that group (which has particular influence on the agenda and outcomes) recusing themselves from decisions that could reasonably be seen as being related to particular interests of a funding source. Furthermore, specifically in regard to risks related to funding of civil society "capacity building" by actors with strong particular interests, I think it is important to have good awareness of these two potential scenarios that would IMO entail a collapse of the overall trustworthiness of civil society when seen as a whole: a) Agenda setting processes being captured (in actual reality or even just in plausible perception) so that those topics where the outcome would be contrary to the funder's interests are not put on the agenda in such a way that an effective outcome results. b) Discriminatory capacity building, where e.g. getting travel funding is correlated to how well someone's positions are aligned to not endangering the funder's particular interests. Or where people are told that they can get travel funding provided they do not "attack" a particular person. 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 Nov 9 17:12:14 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 17:12:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] We Have a Paradigm for Surveillance That's Broken, It's Fit for the Analogue Past Message-ID: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131109_we_have_a_paradigm_for_surveillance_fit_for_the_analogue_past/ -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Nov 9 18:14:02 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 23:14:02 +0000 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill>,<54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A5106@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> My 2 cents: no offense Norbert, but this exercise is bordering on silly. An unnamed (specifically) German government agency is fine; whereas USG programs aimed to support civil society are bad? (and sorry to pick on your example Jeremy, but since you offered ; ) My disclosure: on occasion I receive funding from the US National Science Foundation. But I suppose that makes me also suspect because the USG is powerful; whereas Germany isn't? Please find anyone in Greece, or for that matter France or Switzerland, who will agree with that view of Germany and German government agencies. I suggest starting this discussion all over again: suggesting that some process be established for Best Bits folks fuller disclosure of interests and conflicts of interests is a normal step in a process of institutionalization of informal processes. But whatever those processes are, they should be thought through carefully and not start off as pre-judged based on one persons particular world view. My 2 cents, obviously biased by taking $ from USG...science agency ; ) Lee ________________________________ From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 3:42 AM To: Norbert Bollow Cc: ; Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... I am all for transparency, but there is little to no completely clean money for civil society, and managing that fact is something we all handle in different ways. I would always assume good faith and not get too judgmental about each others' funding sources without knowing how any conflicts of interest are managed. Speaking personally I am prepared to disclose that there are no donors currently supporting my work on IG, but it is of course supported by Consumers International as my employer. The other projects that I work on are supported by Open Society Foundations, IDRC and a German government agency. This shouldn't be taken to set a precedent for anyone else to detail how they are funded, because there may be any number of constraints that would make them feel unsafe or uneasy about disclosing that on a public list. (Replying from my phone.) -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. On 9 Nov 2013, at 4:11 pm, Norbert Bollow > wrote: I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against a wall and shooting them". Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US government? I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in Bali. However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed. Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly. There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one does not want to be an accomplice through silence. Greetings, Norbert Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530 schrieb Anja Kovacs >: Norbert, As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global North. With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South, have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go, those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted" position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite different. While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of funding with people in this community (including in the steering committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations, everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends who provided just that environment. And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits. I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have been altered quite radically along these lines. Thanks and best regards, Anja On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow > wrote: Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and to the coordinators of the IGC I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as potentially highly problematic. Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at least, shaping and directing that capacity. People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic interests. For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project where a US government agency is among the funders. For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships in the future. Greetings, Norbert Sala > wrote: Dear All, For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available through the US State Department, see below: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) November 8, 2013 ------------------------------ Department of State *Public Notice* *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) *SUMMARY* The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and rule of law in Europe and Eurasia. *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in order to obtain a username and password to submit your application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. * *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the following issues: *Moldova* *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, economic and political conditions. This program should focus on one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals which address more than one of the categories. *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. Activities could include, but are not limited to: training minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making process; providing opportunities for participants to network with other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement, organizational management, or communication skills. *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, tolerance, and understanding through components such as inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with the majority group in joint activities. *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms of educational opportunities and outcomes. *Turkey* *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and participate in the political process. The program should support civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and educate citizens on their right to participate in the political process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices, including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability. Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to educate their constituents and the general populace on fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens expectations for political participation. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political environment for civil society in Turkey and an established ability to work with diverse civil society groups. *Azerbaijan* *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil society in enhancing government accountability and respect for fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory democratic system of government. The program should also support the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to: technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional independent civil society. *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> . Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to use the given space effectively. An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically ineligible.* Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* or *www.grants.gov* by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the solicitation and this document. *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* * or **www.grants.gov* *in their entirety. DRL bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes.* Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed. *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* . *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the organization or other sources, such as public-private partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, technology, or science- related projects unless they have an explicit component related to the requested program objectives listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative. DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of government. The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. This request for proposals will appear on *www.grantosolutions.gov*or *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* . *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* >. Once the deadline has passed, State Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed. ------------------------------ Stay connected with the State Department: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 18:28:20 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 18:28:20 -0500 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> Message-ID: <1765E862-76B8-413B-9AC0-D0264F9EFD63@gmail.com> Fully agree with Anriette Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 9, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all > > Overall I share Anja's views on this, matter. We are in these spaces together because of a basic assumption that even if the organisations and individuals who are active in IGF, IRP and Best Bits do not always agree, and have different approaches to their work, we also share some common concerns and interests. > > Perhaps, particularly in IGC, the diversity of approaches and beliefs has reached a point where any kind of cohesion, even on a few specific issues, is not achievable. Demanding 'disclosure' of funding sources is not going to help fix this. In Best Bits we are still managing to do quite a lot of work together, draft statements, and discuss issues constructively. > > Transparency of funding for civil society organisations is indeed important, but I feel that raising it here is counter-productive. Most civil society organisations do disclose their funding publicly in their annual reports and financial statements, and these can usually be found on their websites. Why not simply visit those to find out if you are interested in who funds organisations in these spaces? But there are also some who don't disclose all their sources of funding publicly because of constraints in their countries (as has been said in this thread already). We have to respect that. Not everyone has the same degree of choice in who their funding partners are. > > Anyone who wants to look at APC's sources of funding should simply visit our annual report. The list of partners/donors for 2012 is on page 67 of the 2012 report (which covers our 2009-12 strategic plan). http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_ProgressReport20092012.pdf > > APC itself does not receive any funding from the US Dept of State - but some of our members do - either directly or through partners. Some of them they work in countries where they really have very little choice as there are so few sources of funds for internet-related human rights work. I think Sala's message about funding opportunities should be seen in that light. > > I am not denying that accepting such funding can be problematic. My view is that rather than 'blacklisting' people because of where their funding comes from, I think we should show support to one another - and when possible form partnerships to increase the diversity of funding in the sector, and reduce dependency on single sources, particularly sources that are very directly linked to potentially problematic political agendas. Being overly dependent on one source of funding is never wise, particularly (but not only) when the source is a government. Certainly if some of us were to form partnerships on projects, we would first learn more about one another's donor policies and practices. But IGC, IRP, and Best Bits are discussions spaces and loose coalitions. They don't require this kind of formality. > > Like Jeremy I believe we should always assume good faith, and not be too judgemental. Nevertheless, I do think that frank conversations about funding politics are important. But rather than make these spaces (particularly IGC) feel even more unsafe than they do already, we should try to build the kind of trust where we can share (even if offlist) risks and experiences related to the complexities about donor relationships. > > Anriette > > > > > >> On 09/11/2013 10:42, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> I am all for transparency, but there is little to no completely clean money for civil society, and managing that fact is something we all handle in different ways. I would always assume good faith and not get too judgmental about each others' funding sources without knowing how any conflicts of interest are managed. >> >> Speaking personally I am prepared to disclose that there are no donors currently supporting my work on IG, but it is of course supported by Consumers International as my employer. The other projects that I work on are supported by Open Society Foundations, IDRC and a German government agency. >> >> This shouldn't be taken to set a precedent for anyone else to detail how they are funded, because there may be any number of constraints that would make them feel unsafe or uneasy about disclosing that on a public list. >> >> (Replying from my phone.) >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek >> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' >> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> >> >> >> On 9 Nov 2013, at 4:11 pm, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to >>> what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a >>> member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against >>> a wall and shooting them". >>> >>> Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality >>> of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding >>> relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US >>> government? >>> >>> I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried >>> to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a >>> related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That >>> led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which >>> I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in >>> Bali. >>> >>> However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in >>> Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected >>> the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed. >>> >>> Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other >>> countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next >>> year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly. >>> >>> There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one >>> does not want to be an accomplice through silence. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530 >>> schrieb Anja Kovacs : >>> >>>> Norbert, >>>> As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge >>>> the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global >>>> North. >>>> With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite >>>> unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as >>>> you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity >>>> of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South, >>>> have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they >>>> face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go, >>>> those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that >>>> nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing >>>> that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an >>>> international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted" >>>> position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The >>>> salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite >>>> allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of >>>> decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite >>>> intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the >>>> colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we >>>> are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis >>>> of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite >>>> different. >>>> While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of >>>> funding with people in this community (including in the steering >>>> committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if >>>> they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations, >>>> everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and >>>> privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are >>>> not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to >>>> question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip >>>> ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've >>>> ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is >>>> only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends >>>> who provided just that environment. >>>> And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am >>>> prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should >>>> take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this >>>> conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits. >>>> I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have >>>> been altered quite radically along these lines. >>>> Thanks and best regards, >>>> Anja >>>>> On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering >>>>> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and >>>>> to the coordinators of the IGC >>>>> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, >>>>> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as >>>>> potentially highly problematic. >>>>> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at >>>>> least, shaping and directing that capacity. >>>>> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes >>>>> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters >>>>> that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic >>>>> interests. >>>>> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively >>>>> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps >>>>> such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a >>>>> clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. >>>>> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering >>>>> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the >>>>> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial >>>>> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project >>>>> where a US government agency is among the funders. >>>>> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding >>>>> relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I >>>>> have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships >>>>> in the future. >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Norbert >>>>> Sala wrote: >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to >>>>>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available >>>>>> through the US State Department, see below: >>>>>> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for >>>>>> Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and >>>>>> Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >>>>>> November 8, 2013 >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> Department of State >>>>>> *Public Notice* >>>>>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for >>>>>> Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe >>>>>> and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >>>>>> *SUMMARY* >>>>>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a >>>>>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting >>>>>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and >>>>>> rule of law in Europe and Eurasia. >>>>>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * >>>>>> *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * >>>>>> *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in >>>>>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your >>>>>> application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal >>>>>> Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, >>>>>> available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< >>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. >>>>>> * >>>>>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* >>>>>> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program >>>>>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the >>>>>> following issues: >>>>>> *Moldova* >>>>>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 >>>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of >>>>>> minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, >>>>>> economic and political conditions. This program should focus on >>>>>> one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or >>>>>> Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group >>>>>> and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or >>>>>> other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the >>>>>> three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals >>>>>> which address more than one of the categories. >>>>>> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on >>>>>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local >>>>>> and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. >>>>>> Activities could include, but are not limited to: training >>>>>> minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in >>>>>> political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making >>>>>> process; providing opportunities for participants to network with >>>>>> other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional >>>>>> civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders >>>>>> and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement, >>>>>> organizational management, or communication skills. >>>>>> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on >>>>>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in >>>>>> Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, >>>>>> tolerance, and understanding through components such as >>>>>> inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The >>>>>> program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures >>>>>> and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with >>>>>> the majority group in joint activities. >>>>>> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving >>>>>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through >>>>>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer >>>>>> camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The >>>>>> program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms >>>>>> of educational opportunities and outcomes. >>>>>> *Turkey* >>>>>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately >>>>>> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of >>>>>> civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase >>>>>> citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and >>>>>> participate in the political process. The program should support >>>>>> civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions, >>>>>> the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and >>>>>> educate citizens on their right to participate in the political >>>>>> process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil >>>>>> society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices, >>>>>> including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for >>>>>> respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability. >>>>>> Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement >>>>>> in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to >>>>>> educate their constituents and the general populace on >>>>>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their >>>>>> government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. >>>>>> Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of >>>>>> outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens >>>>>> expectations for political participation. Successful proposals >>>>>> will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political >>>>>> environment for civil society in Turkey and an established >>>>>> ability to work with diverse civil society groups. >>>>>> *Azerbaijan* >>>>>> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 >>>>>> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil >>>>>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for >>>>>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program >>>>>> will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to >>>>>> promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory >>>>>> democratic system of government. The program should also support >>>>>> the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption >>>>>> advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in >>>>>> increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best >>>>>> practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of >>>>>> law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and >>>>>> NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to: >>>>>> technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and >>>>>> human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in >>>>>> effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to >>>>>> encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by >>>>>> citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and >>>>>> activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or >>>>>> fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s >>>>>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized >>>>>> grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and >>>>>> grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability >>>>>> and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a >>>>>> successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a >>>>>> strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in >>>>>> Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional >>>>>> independent civil society. >>>>>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* >>>>>> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission >>>>>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at >>>>>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< >>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> >>>>>> . >>>>>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any >>>>>> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this >>>>>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). >>>>>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL >>>>>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested >>>>>> section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages >>>>>> organizations to use the given space effectively. >>>>>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one >>>>>> per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries >>>>>> and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals >>>>>> that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than >>>>>> the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically >>>>>> ineligible.* >>>>>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive >>>>>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* >>>>>> or *www.grants.gov* >>>>>> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before >>>>>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions >>>>>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission >>>>>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of >>>>>> submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in >>>>>> the solicitation and this document. >>>>>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that >>>>>> proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* >>>>>> * or **www.grants.gov* >>>>>> *in their entirety. DRL bears no >>>>>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or >>>>>> conversion processes.* >>>>>> >>>>>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. >>>>>> Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not >>>>>> discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review >>>>>> process has been completed. >>>>>> >>>>>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will >>>>>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* >>>>>> >>>>>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the >>>>>> organization or other sources, such as public-private >>>>>> partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a >>>>>> strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not >>>>>> be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, >>>>>> technology, or science- related projects unless they have an >>>>>> explicit component related to the requested program objectives >>>>>> listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic >>>>>> development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is >>>>>> strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be >>>>>> outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative. >>>>>> >>>>>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, >>>>>> for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated >>>>>> terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of >>>>>> government. >>>>>> >>>>>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be >>>>>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information >>>>>> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be >>>>>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award >>>>>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the >>>>>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in >>>>>> accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. >>>>>> >>>>>> This request for proposals will appear on >>>>>> *www.grantosolutions.gov*or >>>>>> *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s >>>>>> website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* . >>>>>> >>>>>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* >>>>>> >>>>>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please >>>>>> feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* >>>>>> . Once the deadline has passed, State >>>>>> Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at >>>>>> embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with >>>>>> applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> Stay connected with the State Department: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 9 20:43:10 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:43:10 +1300 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> Message-ID: I am in complete agreement with Anriette. It is counter productive. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Overall I share Anja's views on this, matter. We are in these spaces > together because of a basic assumption that even if the organisations and > individuals who are active in IGF, IRP and Best Bits do not always agree, > and have different approaches to their work, we also share some common > concerns and interests. > > Perhaps, particularly in IGC, the diversity of approaches and beliefs has > reached a point where any kind of cohesion, even on a few specific issues, > is not achievable. Demanding 'disclosure' of funding sources is not going > to help fix this. In Best Bits we are still managing to do quite a lot of > work together, draft statements, and discuss issues constructively. > > Transparency of funding for civil society organisations is indeed > important, but I feel that raising it here is counter-productive. Most > civil society organisations do disclose their funding publicly in their > annual reports and financial statements, and these can usually be found on > their websites. Why not simply visit those to find out if you are > interested in who funds organisations in these spaces? But there are also > some who don't disclose all their sources of funding publicly because of > constraints in their countries (as has been said in this thread already). > We have to respect that. Not everyone has the same degree of choice in who > their funding partners are. > > Anyone who wants to look at APC's sources of funding should simply visit > our annual report. The list of partners/donors for 2012 is on page 67 of > the 2012 report (which covers our 2009-12 strategic plan). > http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_ProgressReport20092012.pdf > > APC itself does not receive any funding from the US Dept of State - but > some of our members do - either directly or through partners. Some of them > they work in countries where they really have very little choice as there > are so few sources of funds for internet-related human rights work. I think > Sala's message about funding opportunities should be seen in that light. > > I am not denying that accepting such funding can be problematic. My view > is that rather than 'blacklisting' people because of where their funding > comes from, I think we should show support to one another - and when > possible form partnerships to increase the diversity of funding in the > sector, and reduce dependency on single sources, particularly sources that > are very directly linked to potentially problematic political agendas. > Being overly dependent on one source of funding is never wise, particularly > (but not only) when the source is a government. Certainly if some of us > were to form partnerships on projects, we would first learn more about one > another's donor policies and practices. But IGC, IRP, and Best Bits are > discussions spaces and loose coalitions. They don't require this kind of > formality. > > Like Jeremy I believe we should always assume good faith, and not be too > judgemental. Nevertheless, I do think that frank conversations about > funding politics are important. But rather than make these spaces > (particularly IGC) feel even more unsafe than they do already, we should > try to build the kind of trust where we can share (even if offlist) risks > and experiences related to the complexities about donor relationships. > > Anriette > > > > > > > On 09/11/2013 10:42, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I am all for transparency, but there is little to no completely clean > money for civil society, and managing that fact is something we all handle > in different ways. I would always assume good faith and not get too > judgmental about each others' funding sources without knowing how any > conflicts of interest are managed. > > Speaking personally I am prepared to disclose that there are no donors > currently supporting my work on IG, but it is of course supported by > Consumers International as my employer. The other projects that I work on > are supported by Open Society Foundations, IDRC and a German government > agency. > > This shouldn't be taken to set a precedent for anyone else to detail how > they are funded, because there may be any number of constraints that would > make them feel unsafe or uneasy about disclosing that on a public list. > > (Replying from my phone.) > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek > host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > On 9 Nov 2013, at 4:11 pm, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to > what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a > member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against > a wall and shooting them". > > Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality > of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding > relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US > government? > > I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried > to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a > related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That > led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which > I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in > Bali. > > However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in > Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected > the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed. > > Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other > countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next > year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly. > > There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one > does not want to be an accomplice through silence. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530 > schrieb Anja Kovacs : > > Norbert, > > > As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge > > the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global > > North. > > > With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite > > unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as > > you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity > > of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South, > > have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they > > face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go, > > those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that > > nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing > > that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an > > international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted" > > position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The > > salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite > > allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of > > decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite > > intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the > > colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we > > are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis > > of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite > > different. > > > While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of > > funding with people in this community (including in the steering > > committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if > > they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations, > > everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and > > privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are > > not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to > > question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip > > ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've > > ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is > > only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends > > who provided just that environment. > > > And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am > > prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should > > take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this > > conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits. > > > I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have > > been altered quite radically along these lines. > > > Thanks and best regards, > > Anja > > > > > On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering > > Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and > > to the coordinators of the IGC > > > > I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, > > when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as > > potentially highly problematic. > > > Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at > > least, shaping and directing that capacity. > > > People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes > > cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters > > that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic > > interests. > > > For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively > > disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps > > such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a > > clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. > > > Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering > > committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the > > coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial > > relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project > > where a US government agency is among the funders. > > > > For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding > > relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I > > have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships > > in the future. > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > Sala wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to > > strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available > > through the US State Department, see below: > > > > > Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for > > Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and > > Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > > > November 8, 2013 > > > ------------------------------ > > > Department of State > > > *Public Notice* > > > *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for > > Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe > > and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) > > > *SUMMARY* > > > The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a > > Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting > > proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and > > rule of law in Europe and Eurasia. > > > *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * > > *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * > > *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in > > order to obtain a username and password to submit your > > application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal > > Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, > > available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< > > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. > > * > > > *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* > > > DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program > > concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the > > following issues: > > > *Moldova* > > > *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 > > available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of > > minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, > > economic and political conditions. This program should focus on > > one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or > > Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group > > and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or > > other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the > > three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals > > which address more than one of the categories. > > > *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on > > developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local > > and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. > > Activities could include, but are not limited to: training > > minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in > > political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making > > process; providing opportunities for participants to network with > > other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional > > civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders > > and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement, > > organizational management, or communication skills. > > > *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on > > minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in > > Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, > > tolerance, and understanding through components such as > > inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The > > program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures > > and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with > > the majority group in joint activities. > > > *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving > > educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through > > activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer > > camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The > > program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms > > of educational opportunities and outcomes. > > > *Turkey* > > > *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately > > $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of > > civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase > > citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and > > participate in the political process. The program should support > > civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions, > > the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and > > educate citizens on their right to participate in the political > > process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil > > society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices, > > including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for > > respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability. > > Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement > > in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to > > educate their constituents and the general populace on > > fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their > > government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. > > Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of > > outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens > > expectations for political participation. Successful proposals > > will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political > > environment for civil society in Turkey and an established > > ability to work with diverse civil society groups. > > > *Azerbaijan* > > > *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 > > available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil > > society in enhancing government accountability and respect for > > fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program > > will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to > > promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory > > democratic system of government. The program should also support > > the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption > > advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in > > increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best > > practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of > > law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and > > NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to: > > technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and > > human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in > > effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to > > encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by > > citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and > > activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or > > fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s > > regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized > > grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and > > grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability > > and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a > > successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a > > strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in > > Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional > > independent civil society. > > > *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* > > > Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission > > Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at > > *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< > > http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> > > . > > > Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any > > time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this > > document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). > > > To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL > > Review Committee will review the first page of the requested > > section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages > > organizations to use the given space effectively. > > > An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one > > per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries > > and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals > > that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than > > the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically > > ineligible.* > > > Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive > > electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* > > or *www.grants.gov* > > by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before > > 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions > > contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission > > Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of > > submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in > > the solicitation and this document. > > > *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that > > proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* > > * or **www.grants.gov* > > *in their entirety. DRL bears no > > responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or > > conversion processes.* > > > Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. > > Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not > > discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review > > process has been completed. > > > *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will > > need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* > > . > > > *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* > > > Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the > > organization or other sources, such as public-private > > partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a > > strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not > > be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, > > technology, or science- related projects unless they have an > > explicit component related to the requested program objectives > > listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic > > development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is > > strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be > > outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative. > > > DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, > > for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated > > terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of > > government. > > > The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be > > modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information > > provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be > > binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award > > commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the > > right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in > > accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. > > > This request for proposals will appear on > > *www.grantosolutions.gov*or > > *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s > > website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* . > > > *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* > > > Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please > > feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* > > . Once the deadline has passed, State > > Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at > > embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with > > applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed. > > > > ------------------------------ > > > Stay connected with the State Department: > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing listIRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.orghttp://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 9 21:08:50 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 07:53:50 +0545 Subject: [governance] OpEd on Surveillance Message-ID: Hello friends, from Namche Bazar in the foothills of the Nepalese Himalaya :) I have just had an opinion piece on surveillance published in CircleID which some of you might appreciate, you can find it here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131109_we_have_a_paradigm_for_surveillance_fit_for_the_analogue_past/ It makes the point that you can break the Internet trying to solve problems with access to personal information online but not really solve the problem unless you look at how countries treat foreigners as ‘fair game’ for unlimited surveillance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 9 21:11:14 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 15:11:14 +1300 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT Message-ID: Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] 1. Adame Peake 2. Ian Peter 3. Kossi Amessinou *[We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom]* *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* 1. Asif Kabani 2. Rudi Vansnick On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is > an update: > > *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. Adame Peake > 2. Ian Peter > 3. Kossi Amessinou > > > *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* > > 1. Asif Kabani > 2. Rudi Vansnick > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jhuns at vt.edu Sat Nov 9 22:35:59 2013 From: jhuns at vt.edu (Jeremy Hunsinger) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 22:35:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I can do nomcom On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is > an update: > > *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. Adame Peake > 2. Ian Peter > 3. Kossi Amessinou > > *[We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom]* > > > *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* > > 1. Asif Kabani > 2. Rudi Vansnick > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is >> an update: >> >> *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] >> >> 1. Adame Peake >> 2. Ian Peter >> 3. Kossi Amessinou >> >> >> *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse >> and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* >> >> 1. Asif Kabani >> 2. Rudi Vansnick >> >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 10 01:59:10 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 13:59:10 +0700 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I volunteer to serve on the MAG. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Nov 10, 2013 5:37 AM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" wrote: > I can do nomcom > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is >> an update: >> >> *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] >> >> 1. Adame Peake >> 2. Ian Peter >> 3. Kossi Amessinou >> >> *[We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom]* >> >> >> *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse >> and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* >> >> 1. Asif Kabani >> 2. Rudi Vansnick >> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is >>> an update: >>> >>> *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] >>> >>> 1. Adame Peake >>> 2. Ian Peter >>> 3. Kossi Amessinou >>> >>> >>> *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be >>> diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* >>> >>> 1. Asif Kabani >>> 2. Rudi Vansnick >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Nov 10 02:02:48 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 23:02:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1384066968.48757.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear All, With reference to the following Call for the Nominations (for IGF MAG), and subsequent messages from Mr Izumi Aizu & Ms Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, I would nominate myself for the IGF MAG. I recently has organized a workshop at AP regional IGF 2013 at Seoul with the title of Governance for the Internet of Kids, Teenagers and Youngsters. Workshop detail & my profile may be find at APrIGF Website (http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-32/ , http://2013.rigf.asia/day3/ and http://2013.rigf.asia/speakers-profiles/#Imran). Further information as mentioned for EOI, I will arrange to submit to the Coordinators and MAG Nomcom. Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah Member Internet Governance Caucus Founding President IGF Pakistan NCUC Member (since 2009) ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) >________________________________ > From: Sonigitu Ekpe >To: Jeremy Hunsinger ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 11:59 >Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT > > > >I volunteer to serve on the MAG. >Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >"Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >+234 8027510179 >On Nov 10, 2013 5:37 AM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" wrote: > >I can do nomcom >> >> >> >> >> >>On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: >>> >>>Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >>> >>> 1. Adame Peake >>> 2. Ian Peter >>> 3. Kossi Amessinou >>>[We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom] >>> >>>Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection  can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>> >>> 1. Asif Kabani >>> >>> 2. Rudi Vansnick >>> >>> >>> >>>On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>>Dear All, >>>> >>>>Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: >>>> >>>>Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >>>> >>>> 1. Adame Peake >>>> 2. Ian Peter >>>> 3. Kossi Amessinou >>>>Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection  can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>>> >>>> 1. Asif Kabani >>>> >>>> 2. Rudi Vansnick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 10 02:15:40 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 20:15:40 +1300 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 5 Days to Go Message-ID: Dear All, The NomCom process can be found here: http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process Due to the tight deadline we have, we apologise in advance for the frequency of the emails on this subject but it is necessary. Even if you do not wish to be selected, your input is valuable and you can play an active role in seeking out appropriate candidates for either the NomCom or MAG. The role of the NomCom is important because out of the 25, only 5 will be randomly selected to identify our nominees for the MAG selection. Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] 1. Adam Peake 2. Ian Peter 3. Kossi Amessinou 4. Angela Daly 5. Jeremy Hunsinger [We need 20 more to volunteer for the NomCom] Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. 1. Asif Kabani 2. Rudi Vansnick 3. Sonigitu Ekpe 4. Imran Ahmed Shah Kind Regards, Sala On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear All, > > With reference to the following Call for the Nominations (for IGF MAG), > and subsequent messages from Mr Izumi Aizu & Ms Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, I > would nominate myself for the IGF MAG. > > I recently has organized a workshop at AP regional IGF 2013 at Seoul with > the title of Governance for the Internet of Kids, Teenagers and Youngsters. > Workshop detail & my profile may be find at APrIGF Website ( > http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-32/ , http://2013.rigf.asia/day3/ and > http://2013.rigf.asia/speakers-profiles/#Imran). > > Further information as mentioned for EOI, I will arrange to submit to the > Coordinators and MAG Nomcom. > > Thanking you and Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > Member Internet Governance Caucus > Founding President IGF Pakistan > NCUC Member (since 2009) > ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Sonigitu Ekpe > *To:* Jeremy Hunsinger ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Sent:* Sunday, 10 November 2013, 11:59 > *Subject:* Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for > names) URGENT > > I volunteer to serve on the MAG. > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > +234 8027510179 > On Nov 10, 2013 5:37 AM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" wrote: > > I can do nomcom > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is > an update: > > *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. Adame Peake > 2. Ian Peter > 3. Kossi Amessinou > > *[We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom]* > > *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* > > 1. Asif Kabani > 2. Rudi Vansnick > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear All, > > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is > an update: > > *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. Adame Peake > 2. Ian Peter > 3. Kossi Amessinou > > > *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* > > 1. Asif Kabani > 2. Rudi Vansnick > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 10 04:40:25 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:40:25 +0500 Subject: [governance] MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 7days deadline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Does the current remit also include past MAG members ;) Best On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > Having served already on the NomCom I’m now volunteering for the MAG. Would > like to bring my experience and knowledge to the MAG table. > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 - Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 > rudi.vansnick at isoc.be > > Member Board of Trustees Internet Society - www.internetsociety.org > Chair NPOC Policy Committee - ICANN - www.npoc.org > > > > > > Op 9-nov.-2013, om 12:34 heeft Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > het volgende geschreven: > > Dear All, > > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an > update: > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > Adame Peake > Ian Peter > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and > wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > x > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> >> Dear All >> >> Further to Izumi Aizu's message about generating names for the MAG by 1 >> December, 2013, this is an urgent call for both names of volunteers for >> those who wish to be considered for the following:- >> >> 1)NomCom to appoint MAG >> 2)Those who wish to be considered for selection for the MAG >> >> Please send in your expression of interest and clearly indicate it in the >> Subject line >> by stating either NomCom (MAG) or MAG Candidate >> >> For those wishing to be apply as MAG candidates, please send a brief about >> yourself, a link to your CV and describe involvement in existing, current >> IGF foras. Also list your possible conflicts of interest and declare any >> interests if any. Also describe why you think you will make a good MAG >> member and what value you can bring to the MAG and also to the IGC and >> broader civil society. Describe principles and values you ascribe to. This >> will help the NomCom in their selection process. Given the short time we >> have, the call for names is open 7 days and will be closed immediately after >> 7 days to give time to the NomCom to make their selection. This will mean >> that the NomCom can start work on the 25th November, 2013. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> izumi >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Chengetai Masango >> Date: 2013/11/7 >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal >> To: MAG List IGF >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on >> the MAG renewal process for 2014. The hard deadline for the submission of >> names is 1 December 2013. >> >> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder >> group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating >> the selection process would be appreciated. >> >> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your >> respective stakeholder groups. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Chengetai >> >> A separate NomCom mailing list will be created to faciltate the process. >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Chengetai Masango >> Date: 2013/11/7 >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal >> To: MAG List IGF >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on >> the MAG renewal process for 2014. The hard deadline for the submission of >> names is 1 December 2013. >> >> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder >> group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating >> the selection process would be appreciated. >> >> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your >> respective stakeholder groups. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Chengetai >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Nov 10 05:01:03 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 23:01:03 +1300 Subject: [governance] MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 7days deadline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At this stage, I am not sure but happy to list your name just the same unless there are objections. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Does the current remit also include past MAG members ;) > > Best > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Rudi Vansnick > wrote: > > Having served already on the NomCom I’m now volunteering for the MAG. > Would > > like to bring my experience and knowledge to the MAG table. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Rudi Vansnick > > Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 - Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 > > rudi.vansnick at isoc.be > > > > Member Board of Trustees Internet Society - www.internetsociety.org > > Chair NPOC Policy Committee - ICANN - www.npoc.org > > > > > > > > > > > > Op 9-nov.-2013, om 12:34 heeft Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > het volgende geschreven: > > > > Dear All, > > > > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is > an > > update: > > > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > > > Adame Peake > > Ian Peter > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and > > wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > >> > >> Dear All > >> > >> Further to Izumi Aizu's message about generating names for the MAG by 1 > >> December, 2013, this is an urgent call for both names of volunteers for > >> those who wish to be considered for the following:- > >> > >> 1)NomCom to appoint MAG > >> 2)Those who wish to be considered for selection for the MAG > >> > >> Please send in your expression of interest and clearly indicate it in > the > >> Subject line > >> by stating either NomCom (MAG) or MAG Candidate > >> > >> For those wishing to be apply as MAG candidates, please send a brief > about > >> yourself, a link to your CV and describe involvement in existing, > current > >> IGF foras. Also list your possible conflicts of interest and declare any > >> interests if any. Also describe why you think you will make a good MAG > >> member and what value you can bring to the MAG and also to the IGC and > >> broader civil society. Describe principles and values you ascribe to. > This > >> will help the NomCom in their selection process. Given the short time we > >> have, the call for names is open 7 days and will be closed immediately > after > >> 7 days to give time to the NomCom to make their selection. This will > mean > >> that the NomCom can start work on the 25th November, 2013. > >> > >> Kind Regards, > >> Sala > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Chengetai Masango > >> Date: 2013/11/7 > >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal > >> To: MAG List IGF > >> > >> > >> Dear All, > >> > >> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement > on > >> the MAG renewal process for 2014. The hard deadline for the submission > of > >> names is 1 December 2013. > >> > >> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder > >> group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating > >> the selection process would be appreciated. > >> > >> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your > >> respective stakeholder groups. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Chengetai > >> > >> A separate NomCom mailing list will be created to faciltate the process. > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Chengetai Masango > >> Date: 2013/11/7 > >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal > >> To: MAG List IGF > >> > >> > >> Dear All, > >> > >> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement > on > >> the MAG renewal process for 2014. The hard deadline for the submission > of > >> names is 1 December 2013. > >> > >> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder > >> group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating > >> the selection process would be appreciated. > >> > >> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your > >> respective stakeholder groups. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Chengetai > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 10 05:27:08 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 15:57:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> Message-ID: <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> Dear All, As some have been shocked by Norbert's email, frankly I too am, well almost, shocked to hear about the problem or hesitation so many of us here seem to have in applying transparency principles to civil society organisations and coalitions in the IG space - especially with regard to those who hold positions of 'power' in CS arrangements, as being our managers of processes, interlocutors with other groups, representatives for UN working groups, MAG, and so on. However, let me try to separate two lines of discussion here, in the hope that IG civil society willstillbe able to apply transparency and accountability principles to itself, that it so much preaches to all others, especially the governments.(In principle agreement with principles is of little use in absence of the required will to apply them in practice.) Need for transparency, including of our funding relationship is one thing, and /*is fact based*/. Judgement of neutrality /*is well a judgement*/, and quite another thing. Although people will make such judgement based on information available because there is transparency in the first place. They would very likely make such a judgement in different ways, as we have seen in this thread, and that is fine. But such differences do not need to affect a prior agreement that, yes, there should be maximum transparency. The two issues should not be conflated, and our different judgements on what could be passable basis for neutrality should not cloud a discussion on the prior issue whether we agree on transparency vis a vis funding relationships (and I will add, basic statement of objectives, activities, organisational relationships and so on). I hope we can separate the two issues and the discussion regarding them. One important issue related to funding transparency is of exceptional situations in which the personal security of those involved with certain kinds of sensitive CS work may get compromised because of 'transparency'. Now, this issue is real, but it cannot be used as a cover all excuse to not have any transparency at all. The situation is very similar, almost identical, to that of governments claiming that since governments do considerable work whose disclosure may compromise national/ public security, demands for right to (public) information are misplaced. In many countries, including India, civil society groups have successfully called this bluff. In most cases it is agreed that while public order/ security exemption may be valid in some case, the default is full transparency, and the case of each and every national/ public security exception should be specially made and generally accepted. Shouldnt the same test apply to civil society propositions of 'personal security' exception. Why do we allow ourselves to be so soft on ourselves. We may not think so but the world is watching and judging us. Even more that other stakeholders. civil society's legitimacy is made or lost dynamically with each of its actions and inactions. /*Bottomline: I strongly support Norbert's proposal that all custodians of CS processes (and I add all reps to other bodies like working groups, MAG etc) should divulge basic information about themselves, which includes all funding sources/ relationships, basic organisational identity if any, a basic statement of intent, purpose and objectives, and summary of *//*activities*//*in the past, present and planned.*/ */ /**/This is a clear and direct proposal, and I request lets not emotionalise it with making judgements or challenging judgements about how the products of such transparency would be seen /**/as in terms of neutrality or otherwise. /*While of course there is no doubt that transparency is being asked for the purpose of allowing people to make their judgements, my simple point is; we need not agree on these judgements even as we agree on the need for transparency - and the specific ways to operationalize the transparency principle. parminder On Sunday 10 November 2013 02:03 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Overall I share Anja's views on this, matter. We are in these spaces > together because of a basic assumption that even if the organisations > and individuals who are active in IGF, IRP and Best Bits do not always > agree, and have different approaches to their work, we also share some > common concerns and interests. > > Perhaps, particularly in IGC, the diversity of approaches and beliefs > has reached a point where any kind of cohesion, even on a few specific > issues, is not achievable. Demanding 'disclosure' of funding sources > is not going to help fix this. In Best Bits we are still managing to > do quite a lot of work together, draft statements, and discuss issues > constructively. > > Transparency of funding for civil society organisations is indeed > important, but I feel that raising it here is counter-productive. Most > civil society organisations do disclose their funding publicly in > their annual reports and financial statements, and these can usually > be found on their websites. Why not simply visit those to find out if > you are interested in who funds organisations in these spaces? But > there are also some who don't disclose all their sources of funding > publicly because of constraints in their countries (as has been said > in this thread already). We have to respect that. Not everyone has > the same degree of choice in who their funding partners are. > > Anyone who wants to look at APC's sources of funding should simply > visit our annual report. The list of partners/donors for 2012 is on > page 67 of the 2012 report (which covers our 2009-12 strategic plan). > http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_ProgressReport20092012.pdf > > APC itself does not receive any funding from the US Dept of State - > but some of our members do - either directly or through partners. > Some of them they work in countries where they really have very little > choice as there are so few sources of funds for internet-related human > rights work. I think Sala's message about funding opportunities should > be seen in that light. > > I am not denying that accepting such funding can be problematic. My > view is that rather than 'blacklisting' people because of where their > funding comes from, I think we should show support to one another - > and when possible form partnerships to increase the diversity of > funding in the sector, and reduce dependency on single sources, > particularly sources that are very directly linked to potentially > problematic political agendas. Being overly dependent on one source of > funding is never wise, particularly (but not only) when the source is > a government. Certainly if some of us were to form partnerships on > projects, we would first learn more about one another's donor policies > and practices. But IGC, IRP, and Best Bits are discussions spaces and > loose coalitions. They don't require this kind of formality. > > Like Jeremy I believe we should always assume good faith, and not be > too judgemental. Nevertheless, I do think that frank conversations > about funding politics are important. But rather than make these > spaces (particularly IGC) feel even more unsafe than they do already, > we should try to build the kind of trust where we can share (even if > offlist) risks and experiences related to the complexities about donor > relationships. > > Anriette > > > > > > On 09/11/2013 10:42, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> I am all for transparency, but there is little to no completely clean >> money for civil society, and managing that fact is something we all >> handle in different ways. I would always assume good faith and not >> get too judgmental about each others' funding sources without knowing >> how any conflicts of interest are managed. >> >> Speaking personally I am prepared to disclose that there are no >> donors currently supporting my work on IG, but it is of course >> supported by Consumers International as my employer. The other >> projects that I work on are supported by Open Society Foundations, >> IDRC and a German government agency. >> >> This shouldn't be taken to set a precedent for anyone else to detail >> how they are funded, because there may be any number of constraints >> that would make them feel unsafe or uneasy about disclosing that on a >> public list. >> >> (Replying from my phone.) >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek >> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org |awk >> -F! '{print $3}' >> >> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> >> >> >> On 9 Nov 2013, at 4:11 pm, Norbert Bollow > > wrote: >> >>> I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to >>> what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a >>> member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against >>> a wall and shooting them". >>> >>> Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality >>> of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding >>> relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US >>> government? >>> >>> I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried >>> to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a >>> related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That >>> led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which >>> I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in >>> Bali. >>> >>> However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in >>> Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected >>> the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed. >>> >>> Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other >>> countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next >>> year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly. >>> >>> There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one >>> does not want to be an accomplice through silence. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530 >>> schrieb Anja Kovacs >> >: >>> >>>> Norbert, >>>> >>>> As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge >>>> the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global >>>> North. >>>> >>>> With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite >>>> unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as >>>> you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity >>>> of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South, >>>> have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they >>>> face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go, >>>> those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that >>>> nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing >>>> that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an >>>> international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted" >>>> position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The >>>> salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite >>>> allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of >>>> decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite >>>> intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the >>>> colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we >>>> are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis >>>> of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite >>>> different. >>>> >>>> While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of >>>> funding with people in this community (including in the steering >>>> committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if >>>> they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations, >>>> everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and >>>> privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are >>>> not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to >>>> question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip >>>> ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've >>>> ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is >>>> only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends >>>> who provided just that environment. >>>> >>>> And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am >>>> prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should >>>> take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this >>>> conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits. >>>> >>>> I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have >>>> been altered quite radically along these lines. >>>> >>>> Thanks and best regards, >>>> Anja >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering >>>>> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and >>>>> to the coordinators of the IGC >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, >>>>> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as >>>>> potentially highly problematic. >>>>> >>>>> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at >>>>> least, shaping and directing that capacity. >>>>> >>>>> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes >>>>> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters >>>>> that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic >>>>> interests. >>>>> >>>>> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively >>>>> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps >>>>> such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a >>>>> clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. >>>>> >>>>> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering >>>>> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the >>>>> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial >>>>> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project >>>>> where a US government agency is among the funders. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding >>>>> relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I >>>>> have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships >>>>> in the future. >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Norbert >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sala >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to >>>>>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available >>>>>> through the US State Department, see below: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for >>>>>> Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and >>>>>> Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >>>>>> >>>>>> November 8, 2013 >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> Department of State >>>>>> >>>>>> *Public Notice* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for >>>>>> Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe >>>>>> and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >>>>>> >>>>>> *SUMMARY* >>>>>> >>>>>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a >>>>>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting >>>>>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and >>>>>> rule of law in Europe and Eurasia. >>>>>> >>>>>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * >>>>>> *www.grantsolutions.gov * >>>>>> * or * >>>>>> *www.grants.gov * >>>>>> * as soon as possible in >>>>>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your >>>>>> application. For more information, please see DRL's Proposal >>>>>> Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, >>>>>> available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< >>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. >>>>>> * >>>>>> >>>>>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* >>>>>> >>>>>> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program >>>>>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the >>>>>> following issues: >>>>>> >>>>>> *Moldova* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 >>>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of >>>>>> minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, >>>>>> economic and political conditions. This program should focus on >>>>>> one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or >>>>>> Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group >>>>>> and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or >>>>>> other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the >>>>>> three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals >>>>>> which address more than one of the categories. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Civic Engagement* -- Civic Engagement proposals should focus on >>>>>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local >>>>>> and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. >>>>>> Activities could include, but are not limited to: training >>>>>> minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in >>>>>> political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making >>>>>> process; providing opportunities for participants to network with >>>>>> other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional >>>>>> civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders >>>>>> and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement, >>>>>> organizational management, or communication skills. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Social Inclusion* -- Social Inclusion proposals should focus on >>>>>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in >>>>>> Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, >>>>>> tolerance, and understanding through components such as >>>>>> inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The >>>>>> program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures >>>>>> and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with >>>>>> the majority group in joint activities. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Education* -- Education proposals should focus on improving >>>>>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through >>>>>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer >>>>>> camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The >>>>>> program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms >>>>>> of educational opportunities and outcomes. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Turkey* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately >>>>>> $500,000 available):* DRL's objective is to build the voice of >>>>>> civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase >>>>>> citizens' awareness that they should be informed about and >>>>>> participate in the political process. The program should support >>>>>> civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions, >>>>>> the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and >>>>>> educate citizens on their right to participate in the political >>>>>> process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil >>>>>> society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices, >>>>>> including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for >>>>>> respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability. >>>>>> Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement >>>>>> in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to >>>>>> educate their constituents and the general populace on >>>>>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their >>>>>> government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. >>>>>> Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of >>>>>> outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens >>>>>> expectations for political participation. Successful proposals >>>>>> will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political >>>>>> environment for civil society in Turkey and an established >>>>>> ability to work with diverse civil society groups. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Azerbaijan* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 >>>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the role of civil >>>>>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for >>>>>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program >>>>>> will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to >>>>>> promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory >>>>>> democratic system of government. The program should also support >>>>>> the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption >>>>>> advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in >>>>>> increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best >>>>>> practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of >>>>>> law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and >>>>>> NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to: >>>>>> technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and >>>>>> human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in >>>>>> effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to >>>>>> encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by >>>>>> citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and >>>>>> activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or >>>>>> fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan's >>>>>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized >>>>>> grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and >>>>>> grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability >>>>>> and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a >>>>>> successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a >>>>>> strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in >>>>>> Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional >>>>>> independent civil society. >>>>>> >>>>>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* >>>>>> >>>>>> Please refer directly to DRL's posted Proposal Submission >>>>>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at >>>>>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< >>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any >>>>>> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this >>>>>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). >>>>>> >>>>>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL >>>>>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested >>>>>> section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages >>>>>> organizations to use the given space effectively. >>>>>> >>>>>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one >>>>>> per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries >>>>>> and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals >>>>>> that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than >>>>>> the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically >>>>>> ineligible.* >>>>>> >>>>>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive >>>>>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov >>>>>> * >>>>>> or *www.grants.gov >>>>>> * >>>>>> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before >>>>>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions >>>>>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission >>>>>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of >>>>>> submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in >>>>>> the solicitation and this document. >>>>>> >>>>>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that >>>>>> proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov >>>>>> * >>>>>> * or **www.grants.gov >>>>>> * >>>>>> *in their entirety. DRL bears no >>>>>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or >>>>>> conversion processes.* >>>>>> >>>>>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. >>>>>> Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not >>>>>> discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review >>>>>> process has been completed. >>>>>> >>>>>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will >>>>>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov >>>>>> * >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* >>>>>> >>>>>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the >>>>>> organization or other sources, such as public-private >>>>>> partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a >>>>>> strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not >>>>>> be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, >>>>>> technology, or science- related projects unless they have an >>>>>> explicit component related to the requested program objectives >>>>>> listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic >>>>>> development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is >>>>>> strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be >>>>>> outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative. >>>>>> >>>>>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, >>>>>> for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated >>>>>> terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of >>>>>> government. >>>>>> >>>>>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be >>>>>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information >>>>>> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be >>>>>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award >>>>>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the >>>>>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in >>>>>> accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. >>>>>> >>>>>> This request for proposals will appear on >>>>>> *www.grantosolutions.gov >>>>>> *or >>>>>> *www.grants.gov * >>>>>> and DRL's >>>>>> website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* >>>>>> >>>>>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please >>>>>> feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov >>>>>> * >>>>>> >. Once the >>>>>> deadline has passed, State >>>>>> Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at >>>>>> embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with >>>>>> applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> Stay connected with the State Department: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysenanriette 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 10 06:12:03 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 09:12:03 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <527F6A03.3030102@cafonso.ca> I do not see we need to complicate this too much. It is actually simple: we are all (I assume) part of or linked to civil society orgs. I think all of these have Web portals. Anyone who needs to check on these issues regarding any of the participants in these cauci would just visit the corresponding institutional portal. But no one is obliged to disclose certain infos -- one reason is of course the safety regarding a possibly adverse political environment where the organization legally resides. However, when we select coordinators for example, it would (again, my opinion) be relevant as part of the selection criteria to know about funding relationships. frt rgds --c.a. On 11/10/2013 08:27 AM, parminder wrote: > Dear All, > > As some have been shocked by Norbert's email, frankly I too am, well > almost, shocked to hear about the problem or hesitation so many of us > here seem to have in applying transparency principles to civil society > organisations and coalitions in the IG space - especially with regard to > those who hold positions of 'power' in CS arrangements, as being our > managers of processes, interlocutors with other groups, representatives > for UN working groups, MAG, and so on. > > However, let me try to separate two lines of discussion here, in the > hope that IG civil society willstillbe able to apply transparency and > accountability principles to itself, that it so much preaches to all > others, especially the governments.(In principle agreement with > principles is of little use in absence of the required will to apply > them in practice.) > > Need for transparency, including of our funding relationship is one > thing, and /*is fact based*/. Judgement of neutrality /*is well a > judgement*/, and quite another thing. Although people will make such > judgement based on information available because there is transparency > in the first place. They would very likely make such a judgement in > different ways, as we have seen in this thread, and that is fine. But > such differences do not need to affect a prior agreement that, yes, > there should be maximum transparency. The two issues should not be > conflated, and our different judgements on what could be passable basis > for neutrality should not cloud a discussion on the prior issue whether > we agree on transparency vis a vis funding relationships (and I will > add, basic statement of objectives, activities, organisational > relationships and so on). > > I hope we can separate the two issues and the discussion regarding them. > > One important issue related to funding transparency is of exceptional > situations in which the personal security of those involved with certain > kinds of sensitive CS work may get compromised because of > 'transparency'. Now, this issue is real, but it cannot be used as a > cover all excuse to not have any transparency at all. > > The situation is very similar, almost identical, to that of governments > claiming that since governments do considerable work whose disclosure > may compromise national/ public security, demands for right to (public) > information are misplaced. In many countries, including India, civil > society groups have successfully called this bluff. In most cases it is > agreed that while public order/ security exemption may be valid in some > case, the default is full transparency, and the case of each and every > national/ public security exception should be specially made and > generally accepted. Shouldnt the same test apply to civil society > propositions of 'personal security' exception. Why do we allow ourselves > to be so soft on ourselves. We may not think so but the world is > watching and judging us. Even more that other stakeholders. civil > society's legitimacy is made or lost dynamically with each of its > actions and inactions. > > /*Bottomline: I strongly support Norbert's proposal that all custodians > of CS processes (and I add all reps to other bodies like working groups, > MAG etc) should divulge basic information about themselves, which > includes all funding sources/ relationships, basic organisational > identity if any, a basic statement of intent, purpose and objectives, > and summary of *//*activities*//*in the past, present and planned.*/ > */ > /**/This is a clear and direct proposal, and I request lets not > emotionalise it with making judgements or challenging judgements about > how the products of such transparency would be seen /**/as in terms of > neutrality or otherwise. /*While of course there is no doubt that > transparency is being asked for the purpose of allowing people to make > their judgements, my simple point is; we need not agree on these > judgements even as we agree on the need for transparency - and the > specific ways to operationalize the transparency principle. > > parminder > > > On Sunday 10 November 2013 02:03 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Dear all >> >> Overall I share Anja's views on this, matter. We are in these spaces >> together because of a basic assumption that even if the organisations >> and individuals who are active in IGF, IRP and Best Bits do not always >> agree, and have different approaches to their work, we also share some >> common concerns and interests. >> >> Perhaps, particularly in IGC, the diversity of approaches and beliefs >> has reached a point where any kind of cohesion, even on a few specific >> issues, is not achievable. Demanding 'disclosure' of funding sources >> is not going to help fix this. In Best Bits we are still managing to >> do quite a lot of work together, draft statements, and discuss issues >> constructively. >> >> Transparency of funding for civil society organisations is indeed >> important, but I feel that raising it here is counter-productive. Most >> civil society organisations do disclose their funding publicly in >> their annual reports and financial statements, and these can usually >> be found on their websites. Why not simply visit those to find out if >> you are interested in who funds organisations in these spaces? But >> there are also some who don't disclose all their sources of funding >> publicly because of constraints in their countries (as has been said >> in this thread already). We have to respect that. Not everyone has >> the same degree of choice in who their funding partners are. >> >> Anyone who wants to look at APC's sources of funding should simply >> visit our annual report. The list of partners/donors for 2012 is on >> page 67 of the 2012 report (which covers our 2009-12 strategic plan). >> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_ProgressReport20092012.pdf >> >> APC itself does not receive any funding from the US Dept of State - >> but some of our members do - either directly or through partners. >> Some of them they work in countries where they really have very little >> choice as there are so few sources of funds for internet-related human >> rights work. I think Sala's message about funding opportunities should >> be seen in that light. >> >> I am not denying that accepting such funding can be problematic. My >> view is that rather than 'blacklisting' people because of where their >> funding comes from, I think we should show support to one another - >> and when possible form partnerships to increase the diversity of >> funding in the sector, and reduce dependency on single sources, >> particularly sources that are very directly linked to potentially >> problematic political agendas. Being overly dependent on one source of >> funding is never wise, particularly (but not only) when the source is >> a government. Certainly if some of us were to form partnerships on >> projects, we would first learn more about one another's donor policies >> and practices. But IGC, IRP, and Best Bits are discussions spaces and >> loose coalitions. They don't require this kind of formality. >> >> Like Jeremy I believe we should always assume good faith, and not be >> too judgemental. Nevertheless, I do think that frank conversations >> about funding politics are important. But rather than make these >> spaces (particularly IGC) feel even more unsafe than they do already, >> we should try to build the kind of trust where we can share (even if >> offlist) risks and experiences related to the complexities about donor >> relationships. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> >> On 09/11/2013 10:42, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> I am all for transparency, but there is little to no completely clean >>> money for civil society, and managing that fact is something we all >>> handle in different ways. I would always assume good faith and not >>> get too judgmental about each others' funding sources without knowing >>> how any conflicts of interest are managed. >>> >>> Speaking personally I am prepared to disclose that there are no >>> donors currently supporting my work on IG, but it is of course >>> supported by Consumers International as my employer. The other >>> projects that I work on are supported by Open Society Foundations, >>> IDRC and a German government agency. >>> >>> This shouldn't be taken to set a precedent for anyone else to detail >>> how they are funded, because there may be any number of constraints >>> that would make them feel unsafe or uneasy about disclosing that on a >>> public list. >>> >>> (Replying from my phone.) >>> >>> -- >>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >>> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek >>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org |awk >>> -F! '{print $3}' >>> >>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9 Nov 2013, at 4:11 pm, Norbert Bollow >> > wrote: >>> >>>> I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to >>>> what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a >>>> member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against >>>> a wall and shooting them". >>>> >>>> Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality >>>> of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding >>>> relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US >>>> government? >>>> >>>> I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried >>>> to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a >>>> related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That >>>> led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which >>>> I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in >>>> Bali. >>>> >>>> However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in >>>> Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected >>>> the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed. >>>> >>>> Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other >>>> countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next >>>> year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly. >>>> >>>> There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one >>>> does not want to be an accomplice through silence. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> >>>> Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530 >>>> schrieb Anja Kovacs >>> >: >>>> >>>>> Norbert, >>>>> >>>>> As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge >>>>> the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global >>>>> North. >>>>> >>>>> With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite >>>>> unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as >>>>> you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity >>>>> of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South, >>>>> have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they >>>>> face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go, >>>>> those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that >>>>> nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing >>>>> that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an >>>>> international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted" >>>>> position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The >>>>> salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite >>>>> allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of >>>>> decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite >>>>> intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the >>>>> colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we >>>>> are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis >>>>> of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite >>>>> different. >>>>> >>>>> While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of >>>>> funding with people in this community (including in the steering >>>>> committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if >>>>> they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations, >>>>> everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and >>>>> privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are >>>>> not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to >>>>> question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip >>>>> ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've >>>>> ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is >>>>> only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends >>>>> who provided just that environment. >>>>> >>>>> And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am >>>>> prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should >>>>> take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this >>>>> conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits. >>>>> >>>>> I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have >>>>> been altered quite radically along these lines. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks and best regards, >>>>> Anja >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering >>>>>> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and >>>>>> to the coordinators of the IGC >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, >>>>>> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as >>>>>> potentially highly problematic. >>>>>> >>>>>> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at >>>>>> least, shaping and directing that capacity. >>>>>> >>>>>> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes >>>>>> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters >>>>>> that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic >>>>>> interests. >>>>>> >>>>>> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively >>>>>> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps >>>>>> such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a >>>>>> clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. >>>>>> >>>>>> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering >>>>>> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the >>>>>> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial >>>>>> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project >>>>>> where a US government agency is among the funders. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding >>>>>> relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I >>>>>> have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships >>>>>> in the future. >>>>>> >>>>>> Greetings, >>>>>> Norbert >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sala >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to >>>>>>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available >>>>>>> through the US State Department, see below: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for >>>>>>> Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and >>>>>>> Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> November 8, 2013 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Department of State >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Public Notice* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for >>>>>>> Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe >>>>>>> and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *SUMMARY* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a >>>>>>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting >>>>>>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and >>>>>>> rule of law in Europe and Eurasia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * >>>>>>> *www.grantsolutions.gov * >>>>>>> * or * >>>>>>> *www.grants.gov * >>>>>>> * as soon as possible in >>>>>>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your >>>>>>> application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal >>>>>>> Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, >>>>>>> available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< >>>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program >>>>>>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the >>>>>>> following issues: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Moldova* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 >>>>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of >>>>>>> minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, >>>>>>> economic and political conditions. This program should focus on >>>>>>> one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or >>>>>>> Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group >>>>>>> and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or >>>>>>> other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the >>>>>>> three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals >>>>>>> which address more than one of the categories. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on >>>>>>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local >>>>>>> and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. >>>>>>> Activities could include, but are not limited to: training >>>>>>> minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in >>>>>>> political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making >>>>>>> process; providing opportunities for participants to network with >>>>>>> other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional >>>>>>> civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders >>>>>>> and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement, >>>>>>> organizational management, or communication skills. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on >>>>>>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in >>>>>>> Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, >>>>>>> tolerance, and understanding through components such as >>>>>>> inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The >>>>>>> program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures >>>>>>> and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with >>>>>>> the majority group in joint activities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving >>>>>>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through >>>>>>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer >>>>>>> camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The >>>>>>> program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms >>>>>>> of educational opportunities and outcomes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Turkey* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately >>>>>>> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of >>>>>>> civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase >>>>>>> citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and >>>>>>> participate in the political process. The program should support >>>>>>> civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions, >>>>>>> the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and >>>>>>> educate citizens on their right to participate in the political >>>>>>> process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil >>>>>>> society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices, >>>>>>> including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for >>>>>>> respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability. >>>>>>> Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement >>>>>>> in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to >>>>>>> educate their constituents and the general populace on >>>>>>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their >>>>>>> government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. >>>>>>> Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of >>>>>>> outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens >>>>>>> expectations for political participation. Successful proposals >>>>>>> will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political >>>>>>> environment for civil society in Turkey and an established >>>>>>> ability to work with diverse civil society groups. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Azerbaijan* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 >>>>>>> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil >>>>>>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for >>>>>>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program >>>>>>> will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to >>>>>>> promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory >>>>>>> democratic system of government. The program should also support >>>>>>> the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption >>>>>>> advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in >>>>>>> increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best >>>>>>> practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of >>>>>>> law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and >>>>>>> NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to: >>>>>>> technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and >>>>>>> human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in >>>>>>> effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to >>>>>>> encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by >>>>>>> citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and >>>>>>> activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or >>>>>>> fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s >>>>>>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized >>>>>>> grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and >>>>>>> grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability >>>>>>> and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a >>>>>>> successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a >>>>>>> strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in >>>>>>> Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional >>>>>>> independent civil society. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission >>>>>>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at >>>>>>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< >>>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any >>>>>>> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this >>>>>>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL >>>>>>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested >>>>>>> section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages >>>>>>> organizations to use the given space effectively. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one >>>>>>> per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries >>>>>>> and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals >>>>>>> that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than >>>>>>> the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically >>>>>>> ineligible.* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive >>>>>>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> or *www.grants.gov >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before >>>>>>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions >>>>>>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission >>>>>>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of >>>>>>> submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in >>>>>>> the solicitation and this document. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that >>>>>>> proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> * or **www.grants.gov >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> *in their entirety. DRL bears no >>>>>>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or >>>>>>> conversion processes.* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. >>>>>>> Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not >>>>>>> discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review >>>>>>> process has been completed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will >>>>>>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the >>>>>>> organization or other sources, such as public-private >>>>>>> partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a >>>>>>> strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not >>>>>>> be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, >>>>>>> technology, or science- related projects unless they have an >>>>>>> explicit component related to the requested program objectives >>>>>>> listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic >>>>>>> development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is >>>>>>> strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be >>>>>>> outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, >>>>>>> for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated >>>>>>> terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of >>>>>>> government. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be >>>>>>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information >>>>>>> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be >>>>>>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award >>>>>>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the >>>>>>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in >>>>>>> accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This request for proposals will appear on >>>>>>> *www.grantosolutions.gov >>>>>>> *or >>>>>>> *www.grants.gov * >>>>>>> and DRL’s >>>>>>> website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please >>>>>>> feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> >. Once the >>>>>>> deadline has passed, State >>>>>>> Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at >>>>>>> embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with >>>>>>> applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stay connected with the State Department: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> IRP mailing list >>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>> >>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 pimienta at funredes.org Sun Nov 10 06:39:02 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 07:39:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <527F6A03.3030102@cafonso.ca> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> <527F6A03.3030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: At 07:12 10/11/2013, you wrote: >I do not see we need to complicate this too much. It is actually simple: >we are all (I assume) part of or linked to civil society orgs. I think >all of these have Web portals. So simple? And what if the institutional web does not hold any (or limited) information on funding? -- 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 ca at cafonso.ca Sun Nov 10 06:43:27 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 09:43:27 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> <527F6A03.3030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <527F715F.20802@cafonso.ca> Caríssimo Daniel, Simple: let us politely recommend that they do :) If they don't, in several cases there is good reason for it, so let us use good sense on this. fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/10/2013 09:39 AM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > At 07:12 10/11/2013, you wrote: >> I do not see we need to complicate this too much. It is actually simple: >> we are all (I assume) part of or linked to civil society orgs. I think >> all of these have Web portals. > > So simple? > And what if the institutional web does not hold any (or limited) > information on funding? > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 10 06:48:32 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 17:18:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <527F6A03.3030102@cafonso.ca> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> <527F6A03.3030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <527F7290.6020901@itforchange.net> On Sunday 10 November 2013 04:42 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I do not see we need to complicate this too much. It is actually simple: Yes, agree, Carlos, it is really simple. (It is not as if Norbert invented the term 'NGO transparency'. Just searching the term on a search engine will tell one the breath and depth of the work done in this area, and how out of times it is for civil society groups to be dismissive of NGO transparency needs and requirements) > we are all (I assume) part of or linked to civil society orgs. I think > all of these have Web portals. Anyone who needs to check on these issues > regarding any of the participants in these cauci would just visit the > corresponding institutional portal. Yes, the norm should be that civil society orgs publish all such info on their websites.... Unfortunately, some very prominent players in global IG space do not do so... > > But no one is obliged to disclose certain infos -- Agreed. In general we cannot force all involved NGOs/ CS persons to do so.... We can only push it as a desired norm (and not shoot people like Norbert who propose such norms/ principles)) > one reason is of > course the safety regarding a possibly adverse political environment > where the organization legally resides. I agreed to this point in my below email. But we should not use such a 'personal safety' argument as a blanket excuse against needed disclosures - as govs are not allowed to use 'national/ public security' logic in a blanket manner. Any 'personal safety' proposition should plausibly match the known specific conditions, and in this matter 'pass the giggle test'. > However, when we select > coordinators for example, it would (again, my opinion) be relevant as > part of the selection criteria to know about funding relationships. In fact, that is all that has been asked for. None here ever asked for anything more. Those who are associated (or are to be associated) with managing CS processes, being CS reps on bodies like MAG. different WGs, CS interlocutors with other bodies, and such special CS positions should divulge such information. Simply because other CS bodies/ persons have to elect/ select them as their reps in some manner and need to know some basic info to be able to do so. I seek that we collectively adopt this principle, and make it operative. parminder > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 11/10/2013 08:27 AM, parminder wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> As some have been shocked by Norbert's email, frankly I too am, well >> almost, shocked to hear about the problem or hesitation so many of us >> here seem to have in applying transparency principles to civil society >> organisations and coalitions in the IG space - especially with regard to >> those who hold positions of 'power' in CS arrangements, as being our >> managers of processes, interlocutors with other groups, representatives >> for UN working groups, MAG, and so on. >> >> However, let me try to separate two lines of discussion here, in the >> hope that IG civil society willstillbe able to apply transparency and >> accountability principles to itself, that it so much preaches to all >> others, especially the governments.(In principle agreement with >> principles is of little use in absence of the required will to apply >> them in practice.) >> >> Need for transparency, including of our funding relationship is one >> thing, and /*is fact based*/. Judgement of neutrality /*is well a >> judgement*/, and quite another thing. Although people will make such >> judgement based on information available because there is transparency >> in the first place. They would very likely make such a judgement in >> different ways, as we have seen in this thread, and that is fine. But >> such differences do not need to affect a prior agreement that, yes, >> there should be maximum transparency. The two issues should not be >> conflated, and our different judgements on what could be passable basis >> for neutrality should not cloud a discussion on the prior issue whether >> we agree on transparency vis a vis funding relationships (and I will >> add, basic statement of objectives, activities, organisational >> relationships and so on). >> >> I hope we can separate the two issues and the discussion regarding them. >> >> One important issue related to funding transparency is of exceptional >> situations in which the personal security of those involved with certain >> kinds of sensitive CS work may get compromised because of >> 'transparency'. Now, this issue is real, but it cannot be used as a >> cover all excuse to not have any transparency at all. >> >> The situation is very similar, almost identical, to that of governments >> claiming that since governments do considerable work whose disclosure >> may compromise national/ public security, demands for right to (public) >> information are misplaced. In many countries, including India, civil >> society groups have successfully called this bluff. In most cases it is >> agreed that while public order/ security exemption may be valid in some >> case, the default is full transparency, and the case of each and every >> national/ public security exception should be specially made and >> generally accepted. Shouldnt the same test apply to civil society >> propositions of 'personal security' exception. Why do we allow ourselves >> to be so soft on ourselves. We may not think so but the world is >> watching and judging us. Even more that other stakeholders. civil >> society's legitimacy is made or lost dynamically with each of its >> actions and inactions. >> >> /*Bottomline: I strongly support Norbert's proposal that all custodians >> of CS processes (and I add all reps to other bodies like working groups, >> MAG etc) should divulge basic information about themselves, which >> includes all funding sources/ relationships, basic organisational >> identity if any, a basic statement of intent, purpose and objectives, >> and summary of *//*activities*//*in the past, present and planned.*/ >> */ >> /**/This is a clear and direct proposal, and I request lets not >> emotionalise it with making judgements or challenging judgements about >> how the products of such transparency would be seen /**/as in terms of >> neutrality or otherwise. /*While of course there is no doubt that >> transparency is being asked for the purpose of allowing people to make >> their judgements, my simple point is; we need not agree on these >> judgements even as we agree on the need for transparency - and the >> specific ways to operationalize the transparency principle. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Sunday 10 November 2013 02:03 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> Dear all >>> >>> Overall I share Anja's views on this, matter. We are in these spaces >>> together because of a basic assumption that even if the organisations >>> and individuals who are active in IGF, IRP and Best Bits do not always >>> agree, and have different approaches to their work, we also share some >>> common concerns and interests. >>> >>> Perhaps, particularly in IGC, the diversity of approaches and beliefs >>> has reached a point where any kind of cohesion, even on a few specific >>> issues, is not achievable. Demanding 'disclosure' of funding sources >>> is not going to help fix this. In Best Bits we are still managing to >>> do quite a lot of work together, draft statements, and discuss issues >>> constructively. >>> >>> Transparency of funding for civil society organisations is indeed >>> important, but I feel that raising it here is counter-productive. Most >>> civil society organisations do disclose their funding publicly in >>> their annual reports and financial statements, and these can usually >>> be found on their websites. Why not simply visit those to find out if >>> you are interested in who funds organisations in these spaces? But >>> there are also some who don't disclose all their sources of funding >>> publicly because of constraints in their countries (as has been said >>> in this thread already). We have to respect that. Not everyone has >>> the same degree of choice in who their funding partners are. >>> >>> Anyone who wants to look at APC's sources of funding should simply >>> visit our annual report. The list of partners/donors for 2012 is on >>> page 67 of the 2012 report (which covers our 2009-12 strategic plan). >>> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_ProgressReport20092012.pdf >>> >>> APC itself does not receive any funding from the US Dept of State - >>> but some of our members do - either directly or through partners. >>> Some of them they work in countries where they really have very little >>> choice as there are so few sources of funds for internet-related human >>> rights work. I think Sala's message about funding opportunities should >>> be seen in that light. >>> >>> I am not denying that accepting such funding can be problematic. My >>> view is that rather than 'blacklisting' people because of where their >>> funding comes from, I think we should show support to one another - >>> and when possible form partnerships to increase the diversity of >>> funding in the sector, and reduce dependency on single sources, >>> particularly sources that are very directly linked to potentially >>> problematic political agendas. Being overly dependent on one source of >>> funding is never wise, particularly (but not only) when the source is >>> a government. Certainly if some of us were to form partnerships on >>> projects, we would first learn more about one another's donor policies >>> and practices. But IGC, IRP, and Best Bits are discussions spaces and >>> loose coalitions. They don't require this kind of formality. >>> >>> Like Jeremy I believe we should always assume good faith, and not be >>> too judgemental. Nevertheless, I do think that frank conversations >>> about funding politics are important. But rather than make these >>> spaces (particularly IGC) feel even more unsafe than they do already, >>> we should try to build the kind of trust where we can share (even if >>> offlist) risks and experiences related to the complexities about donor >>> relationships. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 09/11/2013 10:42, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> I am all for transparency, but there is little to no completely clean >>>> money for civil society, and managing that fact is something we all >>>> handle in different ways. I would always assume good faith and not >>>> get too judgmental about each others' funding sources without knowing >>>> how any conflicts of interest are managed. >>>> >>>> Speaking personally I am prepared to disclose that there are no >>>> donors currently supporting my work on IG, but it is of course >>>> supported by Consumers International as my employer. The other >>>> projects that I work on are supported by Open Society Foundations, >>>> IDRC and a German government agency. >>>> >>>> This shouldn't be taken to set a precedent for anyone else to detail >>>> how they are funded, because there may be any number of constraints >>>> that would make them feel unsafe or uneasy about disclosing that on a >>>> public list. >>>> >>>> (Replying from my phone.) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >>>> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek >>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org |awk >>>> -F! '{print $3}' >>>> >>>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9 Nov 2013, at 4:11 pm, Norbert Bollow >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to >>>>> what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a >>>>> member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against >>>>> a wall and shooting them". >>>>> >>>>> Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality >>>>> of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding >>>>> relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US >>>>> government? >>>>> >>>>> I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried >>>>> to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a >>>>> related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That >>>>> led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which >>>>> I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in >>>>> Bali. >>>>> >>>>> However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in >>>>> Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected >>>>> the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed. >>>>> >>>>> Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other >>>>> countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next >>>>> year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly. >>>>> >>>>> There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one >>>>> does not want to be an accomplice through silence. >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Norbert >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530 >>>>> schrieb Anja Kovacs >>>> >: >>>>> >>>>>> Norbert, >>>>>> >>>>>> As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge >>>>>> the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global >>>>>> North. >>>>>> >>>>>> With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite >>>>>> unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as >>>>>> you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity >>>>>> of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South, >>>>>> have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they >>>>>> face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go, >>>>>> those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that >>>>>> nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing >>>>>> that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an >>>>>> international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted" >>>>>> position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The >>>>>> salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite >>>>>> allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of >>>>>> decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite >>>>>> intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the >>>>>> colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we >>>>>> are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis >>>>>> of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite >>>>>> different. >>>>>> >>>>>> While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of >>>>>> funding with people in this community (including in the steering >>>>>> committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if >>>>>> they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations, >>>>>> everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and >>>>>> privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are >>>>>> not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to >>>>>> question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip >>>>>> ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've >>>>>> ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is >>>>>> only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends >>>>>> who provided just that environment. >>>>>> >>>>>> And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am >>>>>> prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should >>>>>> take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this >>>>>> conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits. >>>>>> >>>>>> I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have >>>>>> been altered quite radically along these lines. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and best regards, >>>>>> Anja >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering >>>>>>> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and >>>>>>> to the coordinators of the IGC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, >>>>>>> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as >>>>>>> potentially highly problematic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at >>>>>>> least, shaping and directing that capacity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes >>>>>>> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters >>>>>>> that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic >>>>>>> interests. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively >>>>>>> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps >>>>>>> such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a >>>>>>> clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering >>>>>>> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the >>>>>>> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial >>>>>>> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project >>>>>>> where a US government agency is among the funders. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding >>>>>>> relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I >>>>>>> have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships >>>>>>> in the future. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greetings, >>>>>>> Norbert >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sala >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to >>>>>>>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available >>>>>>>> through the US State Department, see below: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for >>>>>>>> Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and >>>>>>>> Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> November 8, 2013 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Department of State >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Public Notice* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for >>>>>>>> Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe >>>>>>>> and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *SUMMARY* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a >>>>>>>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting >>>>>>>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and >>>>>>>> rule of law in Europe and Eurasia. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * >>>>>>>> *www.grantsolutions.gov * >>>>>>>> * or * >>>>>>>> *www.grants.gov * >>>>>>>> * as soon as possible in >>>>>>>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your >>>>>>>> application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal >>>>>>>> Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, >>>>>>>> available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< >>>>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program >>>>>>>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the >>>>>>>> following issues: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Moldova* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 >>>>>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of >>>>>>>> minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, >>>>>>>> economic and political conditions. This program should focus on >>>>>>>> one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or >>>>>>>> Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group >>>>>>>> and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or >>>>>>>> other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the >>>>>>>> three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals >>>>>>>> which address more than one of the categories. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on >>>>>>>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local >>>>>>>> and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. >>>>>>>> Activities could include, but are not limited to: training >>>>>>>> minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in >>>>>>>> political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making >>>>>>>> process; providing opportunities for participants to network with >>>>>>>> other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional >>>>>>>> civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders >>>>>>>> and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement, >>>>>>>> organizational management, or communication skills. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on >>>>>>>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in >>>>>>>> Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, >>>>>>>> tolerance, and understanding through components such as >>>>>>>> inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The >>>>>>>> program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures >>>>>>>> and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with >>>>>>>> the majority group in joint activities. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving >>>>>>>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through >>>>>>>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer >>>>>>>> camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The >>>>>>>> program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms >>>>>>>> of educational opportunities and outcomes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Turkey* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately >>>>>>>> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of >>>>>>>> civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase >>>>>>>> citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and >>>>>>>> participate in the political process. The program should support >>>>>>>> civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions, >>>>>>>> the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and >>>>>>>> educate citizens on their right to participate in the political >>>>>>>> process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil >>>>>>>> society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices, >>>>>>>> including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for >>>>>>>> respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability. >>>>>>>> Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement >>>>>>>> in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to >>>>>>>> educate their constituents and the general populace on >>>>>>>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their >>>>>>>> government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. >>>>>>>> Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of >>>>>>>> outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens >>>>>>>> expectations for political participation. Successful proposals >>>>>>>> will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political >>>>>>>> environment for civil society in Turkey and an established >>>>>>>> ability to work with diverse civil society groups. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Azerbaijan* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 >>>>>>>> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil >>>>>>>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for >>>>>>>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program >>>>>>>> will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to >>>>>>>> promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory >>>>>>>> democratic system of government. The program should also support >>>>>>>> the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption >>>>>>>> advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in >>>>>>>> increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best >>>>>>>> practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of >>>>>>>> law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and >>>>>>>> NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to: >>>>>>>> technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and >>>>>>>> human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in >>>>>>>> effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to >>>>>>>> encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by >>>>>>>> citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and >>>>>>>> activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or >>>>>>>> fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s >>>>>>>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized >>>>>>>> grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and >>>>>>>> grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability >>>>>>>> and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a >>>>>>>> successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a >>>>>>>> strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in >>>>>>>> Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional >>>>>>>> independent civil society. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission >>>>>>>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at >>>>>>>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*< >>>>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any >>>>>>>> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this >>>>>>>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL >>>>>>>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested >>>>>>>> section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages >>>>>>>> organizations to use the given space effectively. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one >>>>>>>> per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries >>>>>>>> and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals >>>>>>>> that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than >>>>>>>> the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically >>>>>>>> ineligible.* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive >>>>>>>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> or *www.grants.gov >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before >>>>>>>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions >>>>>>>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission >>>>>>>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of >>>>>>>> submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in >>>>>>>> the solicitation and this document. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that >>>>>>>> proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> * or **www.grants.gov >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> *in their entirety. DRL bears no >>>>>>>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or >>>>>>>> conversion processes.* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. >>>>>>>> Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not >>>>>>>> discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review >>>>>>>> process has been completed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will >>>>>>>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the >>>>>>>> organization or other sources, such as public-private >>>>>>>> partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a >>>>>>>> strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not >>>>>>>> be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, >>>>>>>> technology, or science- related projects unless they have an >>>>>>>> explicit component related to the requested program objectives >>>>>>>> listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic >>>>>>>> development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is >>>>>>>> strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be >>>>>>>> outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, >>>>>>>> for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated >>>>>>>> terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of >>>>>>>> government. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be >>>>>>>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information >>>>>>>> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be >>>>>>>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award >>>>>>>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the >>>>>>>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in >>>>>>>> accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This request for proposals will appear on >>>>>>>> *www.grantosolutions.gov >>>>>>>> *or >>>>>>>> *www.grants.gov * >>>>>>>> and DRL’s >>>>>>>> website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please >>>>>>>> feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> >. Once the >>>>>>>> deadline has passed, State >>>>>>>> Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at >>>>>>>> embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with >>>>>>>> applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Stay connected with the State Department: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> IRP mailing list >>>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> IRP mailing list >>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 10 06:56:02 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 17:26:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <527F7452.6050200@itforchange.net> On Sunday 10 November 2013 05:02 PM, McTim wrote: > >> Bottomline: I strongly support Norbert's proposal that all custodians of CS >> processes (and I add all reps to other bodies like working groups, MAG etc) >> should divulge basic information about themselves, which includes all >> funding sources/ relationships, basic organisational identity if any, a >> basic statement of intent, purpose and objectives, and summary of activities >> in the past, present and planned. > The above does not describe NB proposal. The quote below does: > > "Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering > committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the > coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial > relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project > where a US government agency is among the funders." Agreed. Pursuant to subsequent discussions, Norbert poser about a particular country (which is indeed one of the most powerful players around and holds a special position) should be amended to include all funding sources (whereby Norbert still gets his answer, and everyone can make their respective judgements vis a vis all the different sources). Do you agree now? parminder > > >> This is a clear and direct proposal, > but it only covers one country. > > rgds, > > McTim -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 10 07:23:30 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 01:23:30 +1300 Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Further to the *June 6, 2013* notice for calls for coordinator, we are happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on December 1, 2013. For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was why we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about candidates. This year, we started making early calls to start thinking about nominating someone or standing for the elections for the 2014-2016 term. We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please liaise with them and nominate them on the list. *The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 *to allow for elections. having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I thought I should add some reflections that may help those who are thinking of standing or to encourage people to stand. *Reflections * The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the facilitation of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and encouraging members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the Charter and providing a platform for advocacy. The role and responsibilities will be an opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes antagonistic views. It requires strength, courage and emotional intelligence to manage the responsibilities. For me personally, it has been an incredible opportunity learning about dealing with diverse voices and I can say that I have learnt the discipline of restraint where at times I have had to hold back my view because facilitators have to have some form of neutrality and act in the best interests of the IGC community. Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs to be clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the majority before deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time for Internet Governance. The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally with the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. *Current Nominations Received* 1. Deirdre Williams 2. x 3. x Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in > standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to > nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So > that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to > choose from. > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Nov 10 07:40:10 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 13:40:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: "19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." I understand that in this text: - the "everyone" leads to a not achievable cohesion problem for Anriette, - that may result from the kind of "interference" Norbert would like to prevent. - Parminder addresses it with a simple solution: whoever you are, whatever your opinion make me trust they are not biased by a paid agenda. I disclosed as requested. I am favorable to a CS Oath as does the Olympic Committee which has a similar problem. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sun Nov 10 09:22:37 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 19:52:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 7days deadline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Sala, please add me on the NomCom list!! Further I would like to nominate Fouad, Parminder and Suresh for the MAG if they would so accept. Best regards, *Chaitanya Dhareshwar* Linkedin | Blog | Skype: chaitanyabd Mobile: +91.9820760253 On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is > an update: > > *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. Adame Peake > 2. Ian Peter > 3. x > 4. x > 5. x > 6. x > 7. x > 8. x > 9. x > 10. x > 11. x > 12. x > 13. x > 14. x > 15. x > 16. x > 17. x > 18. x > 19. x > 20. x > 21. x > 22. x > 23. x > 24. x > 25. x > > > *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* > > 1. x > 2. x > 3. x > 4. x > 5. x > 6. x > 7. x > 8. x > 9. x > 10. x > 11. x > 12. x > 13. x > 14. x > 15. x > 16. x > 17. x > 18. x > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All >> >> Further to Izumi Aizu's message about generating names for the MAG by 1 >> December, 2013, this is an urgent call for both names of volunteers for >> those who wish to be considered for the following:- >> >> 1)NomCom to appoint MAG >> 2)Those who wish to be considered for selection for the MAG >> >> Please send in your expression of interest and clearly indicate it in the >> Subject line >> by stating either NomCom (MAG) or MAG Candidate >> >> For those wishing to be apply as MAG candidates, please send a brief >> about yourself, a link to your CV and describe involvement in existing, >> current IGF foras. Also list your possible conflicts of interest and >> declare any interests if any. Also describe why you think you will make a >> good MAG member and what value you can bring to the MAG and also to the IGC >> and broader civil society. Describe principles and values you ascribe to. >> This will help the NomCom in their selection process. Given the short time >> we have, the call for names is open 7 days and will be closed immediately >> after 7 days to give time to the NomCom to make their selection. This will >> mean that the NomCom can start work on the 25th November, 2013. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> izumi >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Chengetai Masango >> Date: 2013/11/7 >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal >> To: MAG List IGF >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement >> on the MAG renewal process for 2014. >> The hard deadline for the submission of names is *1 December 2013*. >> >> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder >> group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating >> the selection process would be appreciated. >> >> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your >> respective stakeholder groups. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Chengetai >> >> A separate NomCom mailing list will be created to faciltate the process. >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Chengetai Masango >> Date: 2013/11/7 >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal >> To: MAG List IGF >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement >> on the MAG renewal process for 2014. >> The hard deadline for the submission of names is *1 December 2013*. >> >> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder >> group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating >> the selection process would be appreciated. >> >> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your >> respective stakeholder groups. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Chengetai >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 10 09:35:08 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 20:05:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 7days deadline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <142426ff1f0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> That is certainly an interesting, even eclectic choice of people :) I don't have enough of a travel budget to track igov events - whatever funding I get is for cybersecurity conferences. So that might actually rule me out straightaway. Thanks --srs (htc one x) On 10 November 2013 7:52:37 PM Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Thanks Sala, please add me on the NomCom list!! > > Further I would like to nominate Fouad, Parminder and Suresh for the MAG if > they would so accept. > > Best regards, > > *Chaitanya Dhareshwar* > > Linkedin | Blog | > Skype: chaitanyabd > Mobile: +91.9820760253 > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is > > an update: > > > > *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] > > > > 1. Adame Peake > > 2. Ian Peter > > 3. x > > 4. x > > 5. x > > 6. x > > 7. x > > 8. x > > 9. x > > 10. x > > 11. x > > 12. x > > 13. x > > 14. x > > 15. x > > 16. x > > 17. x > > 18. x > > 19. x > > 20. x > > 21. x > > 22. x > > 23. x > > 24. x > > 25. x > > > > > > *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > > and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* > > > > 1. x > > 2. x > > 3. x > > 4. x > > 5. x > > 6. x > > 7. x > > 8. x > > 9. x > > 10. x > > 11. x > > 12. x > > 13. x > > 14. x > > 15. x > > 16. x > > 17. x > > 18. x > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Dear All > >> > >> Further to Izumi Aizu's message about generating names for the MAG by 1 > >> December, 2013, this is an urgent call for both names of volunteers for > >> those who wish to be considered for the following:- > >> > >> 1)NomCom to appoint MAG > >> 2)Those who wish to be considered for selection for the MAG > >> > >> Please send in your expression of interest and clearly indicate it in the > >> Subject line > >> by stating either NomCom (MAG) or MAG Candidate > >> > >> For those wishing to be apply as MAG candidates, please send a brief > >> about yourself, a link to your CV and describe involvement in existing, > >> current IGF foras. Also list your possible conflicts of interest and > >> declare any interests if any. Also describe why you think you will make a > >> good MAG member and what value you can bring to the MAG and also to the IGC > >> and broader civil society. Describe principles and values you ascribe to. > >> This will help the NomCom in their selection process. Given the short time > >> we have, the call for names is open 7 days and will be closed immediately > >> after 7 days to give time to the NomCom to make their selection. This will > >> mean that the NomCom can start work on the 25th November, 2013. > >> > >> Kind Regards, > >> Sala > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Chengetai Masango > >> Date: 2013/11/7 > >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal > >> To: MAG List IGF > >> > >> > >> Dear All, > >> > >> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement > >> on the MAG renewal process > for > 2014. > >> The hard deadline for the submission of names is *1 December 2013*. > >> > >> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder > >> group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating > >> the selection process would be appreciated. > >> > >> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your > >> respective stakeholder groups. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Chengetai > >> > >> A separate NomCom mailing list will be created to faciltate the process. > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Chengetai Masango > >> Date: 2013/11/7 > >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal > >> To: MAG List IGF > >> > >> > >> Dear All, > >> > >> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement > >> on the MAG renewal process > for > 2014. > >> The hard deadline for the submission of names is *1 December 2013*. > >> > >> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder > >> group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating > >> the selection process would be appreciated. > >> > >> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your > >> respective stakeholder groups. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Chengetai > >> > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 10 09:54:28 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:54:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2543488@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Norbert, you need to reply to this. Is there a consistent disclosure standard regarding government funding, or only one that singles out US government agencies? Canada's IDRC, Hivos of NL, Denmark, Sweden, Brazil, Germany...all have capacity building programs. -----Original Message----- The above does not describe NB proposal. The quote below does: "Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project where a US government agency is among the funders." > > This is a clear and direct proposal, but it only covers one country. rgds, McTim _______________________________________________ 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 kerry at kdbsystems.com Sun Nov 10 10:48:59 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 15:48:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please include my name for consideration on the noncom. Kerry Brown ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:23 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] Dear Colleagues, Further to the June 6, 2013 notice for calls for coordinator, we are happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on December 1, 2013. For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was why we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about candidates. This year, we started making early calls to start thinking about nominating someone or standing for the elections for the 2014-2016 term. We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please liaise with them and nominate them on the list. The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 to allow for elections. having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I thought I should add some reflections that may help those who are thinking of standing or to encourage people to stand. Reflections The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the facilitation of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and encouraging members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the Charter and providing a platform for advocacy. The role and responsibilities will be an opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes antagonistic views. It requires strength, courage and emotional intelligence to manage the responsibilities. For me personally, it has been an incredible opportunity learning about dealing with diverse voices and I can say that I have learnt the discipline of restraint where at times I have had to hold back my view because facilitators have to have some form of neutrality and act in the best interests of the IGC community. Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs to be clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the majority before deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time for Internet Governance. The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally with the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. Current Nominations Received 1. Deirdre Williams 2. x 3. x Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: Dear All, Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to choose from. Thank you. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Nov 10 12:02:21 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 18:02:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2543488@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.sy r.edu> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2543488@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: At 15:54 10/11/2013, Milton L Mueller wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Norbert, you need to reply to this. Is there a consistent disclosure >standard regarding government funding, or only one that singles out >US government agencies? As a first step, I suggest that we consider the countries whose government has itself declared that the behaviour of some of its agencies was illegal. In a second step every Civil Society Member whose T&L is paid by a (a) stakeholder(s) from a non-Civil Society stakeholder group. MSism is not supposed to be interstakeholderism. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Sun Nov 10 12:13:29 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 19:13:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <527F6A03.3030102@cafonso.ca> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> <527F6A03.3030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20131110171329.GB29045@tarvainen.info> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 09:12:03AM -0200, Carlos A. Afonso (ca at cafonso.ca) wrote: > I do not see we need to complicate this too much. It is actually simple: > we are all (I assume) part of or linked to civil society orgs. I think > all of these have Web portals. Anyone who needs to check on these issues > regarding any of the participants in these cauci would just visit the > corresponding institutional portal. > > But no one is obliged to disclose certain infos -- one reason is of > course the safety regarding a possibly adverse political environment > where the organization legally resides. However, when we select > coordinators for example, it would (again, my opinion) be relevant as > part of the selection criteria to know about funding relationships. That sounds eminently reasonable to me. For myself, being in IRP steering committee, I can disclose that my IGF trips have been supported by Jyväskylä university (where I work) and Effi; in case of Bali I paid half of it myself (from my vacation budget, as it were). -- Tapani Tarvainen Vice president, Electronic Frontier Finland (Effi) email tapani.tarvainen at effi.org tel. +358-40-7293479 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 10 14:28:26 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 19:28:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> <20131110124021.E3FDD3287CC@a2knetwork.org> Message-ID: All, This is one of those threads I start reading and then shake my head wondering whether I should keep on reading. I stopped at some point but wanted to offer some basic thoughts based on what I have read, and not replying to anyone specifically. #1 The initial request was made to BB and IRP steering committee members as well as IGC co-coordinators, not every single member of CS. #2 As a matter of principle, it is okay, in my humble opinion, for CS groups to want to adopt a policy/procedure for funding disclosure or for addressing conflict of interest issues, particularly for members in leadership position. #3 That procedure does not have to be carried out publicly on a discussion list such as these ones --for, among other things, the safety reasons and possible risks that have already been mentioned. A structure may be put in place (NomCom?) to receive such statements. #4 The said policy would not just apply to people affiliated to an organization, be it CS or otherwise (so that the public would just need to go check out their report and financial statement from their website.) Individuals, too, may be concerned. For instance personally, I am not currently affiliated to any CS org per se. Suppose overnight I start showing up at all internet policy meetings around the globe, becoming increasingly vocal to a point where I find myself thrown into some leadership role (yes, sometimes that happens because people are ubiquitous and vocal.) I think it's normal someone would ask: Who's backing Mawaki for him to be able to attend all these meetings and become so visible? Is there some agenda behind? #5 It would certainly be wrong if this were to be done in the spirit of _judging_ or even being _suspicious_ of anyone subject to the procedure. And on that note, I must admit that was unfortunate to single out US government --even if it was intended as an example in the context of the ad for US fellowship forwarded initially (it didn't even come across that way, sorry.) #6 Rather if this were to be done properly, it should be in the spirit of sending the signal that we, CS, have taken the trouble to check that there is nothing wrong, inappropriate or questionable about the ability of the people we designate to be the custodians of our collective or send out to be our voice or defend our interests to effectively do so. And this is not because we are, by default, suspicious of each other, but just a simple question of good practice and common sense (charity begins at home) with regard to transparency. Again, check back #3. #7 Now I understand the committee that might be put in charge to receive and assess funding disclosures (maybe conflict of interests statements, if needed, may go public?) would need some solid guidelines and principles to rigorously but fairly assess when does a case become an issue, from which point a case become subject to question. That is where some substantive work will need to be done if one decides to pursue this route. I suspect there might not be one size fits all here in terms of same set of criteria with their single definition applied with the same weight for everybody whatever their position on the "power grid" or the power matrix, to use Anja's construct. #8 It is also my understanding that the nature of the organization at hand and the stake involved in its business/mission are normally a significant part of the rationale for implementing the kind of procedure we are talking about. As much as I am fully for the principle of transparency and disclosure (while not jeopardizing the safety of anyone) I recognize the case still remains to be made about IGC needing to implement this policy --just because I'm not really sure what IGC is at this point in time. We are not even being asked anymore to nominate a slate of candidates for anything, other organizations are. Alternatively, individuals among us are being approached directly with the proposition to take on one role or another. So what are we, IGC --just a discussion list? Maybe that question is worth answering before going forward with this policy (as far as IGC is concerned). Last reflection, this conversation makes me think, with a smile, that there are basically three ways for having money: i) you sell something, goods or services; ii) you tax someone else; or iii) someone chooses to give you the money for whatever reason, possibly including a service you didn't even set out to sell. In CS we do at least a little bit of the three --through grant proposals or consultancy, member dues (albeit with less dire consequences than defaulting on your income tax), and fundraising or donations CS orgs receive. But it looks like the latter category is what supports the most CS advocacy activities. That makes you think twice about where we actually are on the power map. Maybe there is some solace to be found in the fact that many of the sources CS orgs get money from are also part of CS, to begin with: private citizens who once were industrious enough and with enough ingenuity to become wealthy and set up foundations or other charity orgs. Short of that, CS would perhaps have to receive the bulk of its money from the people who tax other people. Best, Mawaki p.s. I neither represent nor speak for any other than myself. I have nothing to declare at the CS customs... Seriously, I have no funding source at this point. On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 3:14 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Nov 10, 2013, at 9:14 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > > NRO - Network of Internet Regional Registries paid my Bali bill. > > And thank you (again) for being able to speak at session #145 "Importance > of Regional > Coordination in Internet Governance"... > > It is quite reasonable for an IGF session organizer (the NRO in this > case) to help defray > travel costs for a panelist if need be; the alternative would definitely > limit the range of > views available during these discussions. > > FYI, > /John > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From eiriarte at alfa-redi.org Sun Nov 10 19:14:57 2013 From: eiriarte at alfa-redi.org (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 19:14:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi I would like to serve in the MAG NomCom :) erick El 09/11/2013, a las 21:11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro escribió: > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > Adame Peake > Ian Peter > Kossi Amessinou > [We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom] > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > Adame Peake > Ian Peter > Kossi Amessinou > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Sun Nov 10 19:04:33 2013 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 18:04:33 -0600 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I will be happy to serve on the NomCom gp On 10 November 2013 18:14, Erick Iriarte Ahon wrote: > Hi I would like to serve in the MAG NomCom :) > > erick > > El 09/11/2013, a las 21:11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro escribió: > > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is > an update: > > *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. Adame Peake > 2. Ian Peter > 3. Kossi Amessinou > > *[We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom]* > > > *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* > > 1. Asif Kabani > 2. Rudi Vansnick > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is >> an update: >> >> *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] >> >> 1. Adame Peake >> 2. Ian Peter >> 3. Kossi Amessinou >> >> >> *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse >> and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* >> >> 1. Asif Kabani >> 2. Rudi Vansnick >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Nov 10 19:35:48 2013 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 19:35:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] I volunteered MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131110193548.14491gp33txnqb8k@www.ciencitec.com> Greetings, please accept my postulation volunteered for the NomCom Jose F. Callo Romero Lima - Peru Ginger Paque escribió: > I will be happy to serve on the NomCom gp > > > On 10 November 2013 18:14, Erick Iriarte Ahon wrote: > >> Hi I would like to serve in the MAG NomCom :) >> >> erick >> >> El 09/11/2013, a las 21:11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro escribió: >> >> Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is >> an update: >> >> *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] >> >> 1. Adame Peake >> 2. Ian Peter >> 3. Kossi Amessinou >> >> *[We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom]* >> >> >> *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse >> and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* >> >> 1. Asif Kabani >> 2. Rudi Vansnick >> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is >>> an update: >>> >>> *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] >>> >>> 1. Adame Peake >>> 2. Ian Peter >>> 3. Kossi Amessinou >>> >>> >>> *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse >>> and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* >>> >>> 1. Asif Kabani >>> 2. Rudi Vansnick >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Sun Nov 10 19:37:09 2013 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 19:37:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 7days deadline In-Reply-To: <142426ff1f0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <142426ff1f0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20131110193709.86906qlqjshqdqr9@www.ciencitec.com> Greetings, please accept my postulation volunteered for the NomCom Jose F. Callo Romero Lima - Peru Suresh Ramasubramanian escribió: > That is certainly an interesting, even eclectic choice of people :) > > I don't have enough of a travel budget to track igov events - > whatever funding I get is for cybersecurity conferences. So that > might actually rule me out straightaway. > > Thanks > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 10 November 2013 7:52:37 PM Chaitanya Dhareshwar > wrote: >> Thanks Sala, please add me on the NomCom list!! >> >> Further I would like to nominate Fouad, Parminder and Suresh for the MAG if >> they would so accept. >> >> Best regards, >> >> *Chaitanya Dhareshwar* >> >> Linkedin | Blog >> | >> Skype: chaitanyabd >> Mobile: +91.9820760253 >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is >>> an update: >>> >>> *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] >>> >>> 1. Adame Peake >>> 2. Ian Peter >>> 3. x >>> 4. x >>> 5. x >>> 6. x >>> 7. x >>> 8. x >>> 9. x >>> 10. x >>> 11. x >>> 12. x >>> 13. x >>> 14. x >>> 15. x >>> 16. x >>> 17. x >>> 18. x >>> 19. x >>> 20. x >>> 21. x >>> 22. x >>> 23. x >>> 24. x >>> 25. x >>> >>> >>> *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse >>> and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* >>> >>> 1. x >>> 2. x >>> 3. x >>> 4. x >>> 5. x >>> 6. x >>> 7. x >>> 8. x >>> 9. x >>> 10. x >>> 11. x >>> 12. x >>> 13. x >>> 14. x >>> 15. x >>> 16. x >>> 17. x >>> 18. x >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All >>>> >>>> Further to Izumi Aizu's message about generating names for the MAG by 1 >>>> December, 2013, this is an urgent call for both names of volunteers for >>>> those who wish to be considered for the following:- >>>> >>>> 1)NomCom to appoint MAG >>>> 2)Those who wish to be considered for selection for the MAG >>>> >>>> Please send in your expression of interest and clearly indicate it in the >>>> Subject line >>>> by stating either NomCom (MAG) or MAG Candidate >>>> >>>> For those wishing to be apply as MAG candidates, please send a brief >>>> about yourself, a link to your CV and describe involvement in existing, >>>> current IGF foras. Also list your possible conflicts of interest and >>>> declare any interests if any. Also describe why you think you will make a >>>> good MAG member and what value you can bring to the MAG and also >>>> to the IGC >>>> and broader civil society. Describe principles and values you ascribe to. >>>> This will help the NomCom in their selection process. Given the short time >>>> we have, the call for names is open 7 days and will be closed immediately >>>> after 7 days to give time to the NomCom to make their selection. This will >>>> mean that the NomCom can start work on the 25th November, 2013. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> izumi >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Chengetai Masango >>>> Date: 2013/11/7 >>>> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal >>>> To: MAG List IGF >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement >>>> on the MAG renewal process >>>> for >>>> 2014. >>>> The hard deadline for the submission of names is *1 December 2013*. >>>> >>>> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder >>>> group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating >>>> the selection process would be appreciated. >>>> >>>> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your >>>> respective stakeholder groups. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Chengetai >>>> >>>> A separate NomCom mailing list will be created to faciltate the process. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Chengetai Masango >>>> Date: 2013/11/7 >>>> Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal >>>> To: MAG List IGF >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement >>>> on the MAG renewal process >>>> for >>>> 2014. >>>> The hard deadline for the submission of names is *1 December 2013*. >>>> >>>> For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder >>>> group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating >>>> the selection process would be appreciated. >>>> >>>> I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your >>>> respective stakeholder groups. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Chengetai >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your 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 Nov 10 19:45:37 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:45:37 +1300 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 4 Days to Go Message-ID: Today's update is as follows. Thank you for those who are volunteering so far, we still need more people to volunteer for the NomCom so we can facilitate the process of randomly selecting the NomCom. Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] 1. Adam Peake 2. Ian Peter 3. Kossi Amessinou 4. Angela Daly 5. Jeremy Hunsinger 6. Kerry Brown 7. Chaitanya Dhareshwar 8. Erick Iriarte Ahon 9. Ginger Paque 10. Jose F Callo Romero [We need 15 more to volunteer for the NomCom] Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. 1. Asif Kabani 2. Rudi Vansnick 3. Sonigitu Ekpe 4. Imran Ahmed Shah 5. Fouad Bajwa 6. Katim S Touray -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 10 20:58:57 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 07:28:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 4 Days to Go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14244e1fb90.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I am glad to volunteer for the nomcom Thanks --srs (htc one x) On 11 November 2013 6:15:37 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > Today's update is as follows. Thank you for those who are volunteering so > far, we still need more people to volunteer for the NomCom so we can > facilitate the process of randomly selecting the NomCom. > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. > > Adam Peake > 2. > > Ian Peter > 3. > > Kossi Amessinou > 4. > > Angela Daly > 5. > > Jeremy Hunsinger > 6. > > Kerry Brown > 7. > > Chaitanya Dhareshwar > 8. > > Erick Iriarte Ahon > 9. > > Ginger Paque > 10. > > Jose F Callo Romero > > > > [We need 15 more to volunteer for the NomCom] > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > 1. > > Asif Kabani > 2. > > Rudi Vansnick > 3. > > Sonigitu Ekpe > 4. > > Imran Ahmed Shah > 5. > > Fouad Bajwa > 6. > > Katim S Touray -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Nov 10 21:45:55 2013 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 03:45:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 4 Days to Go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: VOLUNTEER MAG NOMCOM: BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE 2013/11/11 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Today's update is as follows. Thank you for those who are volunteering so > far, we still need more people to volunteer for the NomCom so we can > facilitate the process of randomly selecting the NomCom. > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. > > Adam Peake > 2. > > Ian Peter > 3. > > Kossi Amessinou > 4. > > Angela Daly > 5. > > Jeremy Hunsinger > 6. > > Kerry Brown > 7. > > Chaitanya Dhareshwar > 8. > > Erick Iriarte Ahon > 9. > > Ginger Paque > 10. > > Jose F Callo Romero > > > > [We need 15 more to volunteer for the NomCom] > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > 1. > > Asif Kabani > 2. > > Rudi Vansnick > 3. > > Sonigitu Ekpe > 4. > > Imran Ahmed Shah > 5. > > Fouad Bajwa > 6. > > Katim S Touray > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe 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 cveraq at gmail.com Sun Nov 10 22:55:07 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:55:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 4 Days to Go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please count on me Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq > El 10/11/2013, a las 19:45, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" escribió: > > Today's update is as follows. Thank you for those who are volunteering so far, we still need more people to volunteer for the NomCom so we can facilitate the process of randomly selecting the NomCom. > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > Adam Peake > Ian Peter > Kossi Amessinou > Angela Daly > Jeremy Hunsinger > Kerry Brown > Chaitanya Dhareshwar > Erick Iriarte Ahon > Ginger Paque > Jose F Callo Romero > > > [We need 15 more to volunteer for the NomCom] > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > Sonigitu Ekpe > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > Katim S Touray > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From robin at ipjustice.org Sun Nov 10 23:12:00 2013 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 20:12:00 -0800 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 4 Days to Go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'd be glad to assist with the NomCom also. Thanks, Robin Gross IP Justice On Nov 10, 2013, at 7:55 PM, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: > Please count on me > > Carlos Vera Quintana > 0988141143 > Sígueme @cveraq > > El 10/11/2013, a las 19:45, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > escribió: > >> Today's update is as follows. Thank you for those who are >> volunteering so far, we still need more people to volunteer for >> the NomCom so we can facilitate the process of randomly selecting >> the NomCom. >> >> Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >> Adam Peake >> Ian Peter >> Kossi Amessinou >> Angela Daly >> Jeremy Hunsinger >> Kerry Brown >> Chaitanya Dhareshwar >> Erick Iriarte Ahon >> Ginger Paque >> Jose F Callo Romero >> >> >> [We need 15 more to volunteer for the NomCom] >> >> Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be >> diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >> Asif Kabani >> Rudi Vansnick >> Sonigitu Ekpe >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> Fouad Bajwa >> Katim S Touray >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Nov 10 23:14:27 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:14:27 +0800 Subject: [governance] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <20131109225442.44b1b129@quill> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109225442.44b1b129@quill> Message-ID: <528059A3.8050600@ciroap.org> On 10/11/13 05:54, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Because I asked about how Andrew's work is funded, I've been sent (by > one of the authors) a copy of a research paper on "capacity building" > funding where the initial BestBits meeting (the one prior to the Baku > IGF) is described as having been part of a capacity building project > funded in part by the US government. That's just false, so that paper needs to be corrected. -- *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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ehchun at gmail.com Mon Nov 11 01:22:24 2013 From: ehchun at gmail.com (Chun Eung Hwi) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:22:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 4 Days to Go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am glad to work for this nomination process. Please count on me! Chun Eung Hwi Chair of OpenNet Korea Ehchun at gmail.com 2013년 11월 11일 월요일에 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro님이 작성: > Today's update is as follows. Thank you for those who are volunteering so > far, we still need more people to volunteer for the NomCom so we can > facilitate the process of randomly selecting the NomCom. > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. > > Adam Peake > 2. > > Ian Peter > 3. > > Kossi Amessinou > 4. > > Angela Daly > 5. > > Jeremy Hunsinger > 6. > > Kerry Brown > 7. > > Chaitanya Dhareshwar > 8. > > Erick Iriarte Ahon > 9. > > Ginger Paque > 10. > > Jose F Callo Romero > > > > [We need 15 more to volunteer for the NomCom] > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > 1. > > Asif Kabani > 2. > > Rudi Vansnick > 3. > > Sonigitu Ekpe > 4. > > Imran Ahmed Shah > 5. > > Fouad Bajwa > 6. > > Katim S Touray > > > > -- --------------------- Chun Eung Hwi ehchun at gmail.com pcs (+82) 19-259-2667 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 11 01:29:10 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:29:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 4 Days to Go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131111062910.GA15782@tarvainen.info> Count me in as well (for the NomCom, not for MAG). -- Tapani Tarvainen On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 03:22:24PM +0900, Chun Eung Hwi (ehchun at gmail.com) wrote: > I am glad to work for this nomination process. > Please count on me! > > > Chun Eung Hwi > Chair of OpenNet Korea > Ehchun at gmail.com > > 2013년 11월 11일 월요일에 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro님이 작성: > > > Today's update is as follows. Thank you for those who are volunteering so > > far, we still need more people to volunteer for the NomCom so we can > > facilitate the process of randomly selecting the NomCom. > > > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > > > 1. > > > > Adam Peake > > 2. > > > > Ian Peter > > 3. > > > > Kossi Amessinou > > 4. > > > > Angela Daly > > 5. > > > > Jeremy Hunsinger > > 6. > > > > Kerry Brown > > 7. > > > > Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > 8. > > > > Erick Iriarte Ahon > > 9. > > > > Ginger Paque > > 10. > > > > Jose F Callo Romero > > > > > > > > [We need 15 more to volunteer for the NomCom] > > > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > > and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > > > 1. > > > > Asif Kabani > > 2. > > > > Rudi Vansnick > > 3. > > > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > 4. > > > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > 5. > > > > Fouad Bajwa > > 6. > > > > Katim S Touray > > > > > > > > > > -- > --------------------- > Chun Eung Hwi > > ehchun at gmail.com > pcs (+82) 19-259-2667 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Mon Nov 11 03:09:56 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:09:56 +1000 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 4 Days to Go In-Reply-To: <20131111062910.GA15782@tarvainen.info> References: <20131111062910.GA15782@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: I would be happy to volunteer for the NomCom as well. Sent from my iPad > On 11 Nov 2013, at 4:29 pm, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Count me in as well (for the NomCom, not for MAG). > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > >> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 03:22:24PM +0900, Chun Eung Hwi (ehchun at gmail.com) wrote: >> >> I am glad to work for this nomination process. >> Please count on me! >> >> >> Chun Eung Hwi >> Chair of OpenNet Korea >> Ehchun at gmail.com >> >> 2013년 11월 11일 월요일에 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro님이 작성: >> >>> Today's update is as follows. Thank you for those who are volunteering so >>> far, we still need more people to volunteer for the NomCom so we can >>> facilitate the process of randomly selecting the NomCom. >>> >>> Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> Adam Peake >>> 2. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> 3. >>> >>> Kossi Amessinou >>> 4. >>> >>> Angela Daly >>> 5. >>> >>> Jeremy Hunsinger >>> 6. >>> >>> Kerry Brown >>> 7. >>> >>> Chaitanya Dhareshwar >>> 8. >>> >>> Erick Iriarte Ahon >>> 9. >>> >>> Ginger Paque >>> 10. >>> >>> Jose F Callo Romero >>> >>> >>> >>> [We need 15 more to volunteer for the NomCom] >>> >>> Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse >>> and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> Asif Kabani >>> 2. >>> >>> Rudi Vansnick >>> 3. >>> >>> Sonigitu Ekpe >>> 4. >>> >>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>> 5. >>> >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> 6. >>> >>> Katim S Touray >> >> -- >> --------------------- >> Chun Eung Hwi >> >> ehchun at gmail.com >> pcs (+82) 19-259-2667 > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Nov 11 05:08:19 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 23:08:19 +1300 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 4 Days to Go Message-ID: Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] 1. Adam Peake 2. Ian Peter 3. Kossi Amessinou 4. Angela Daly 5. Jeremy Hunsinger 6. Kerry Brown 7. Chaitanya Dhareshwar 8. Erick Iriarte Ahon 9. Ginger Paque 10. Jose F Callo Romero 11. Suresh Ramasubramanium 12. Badouin Schombe 13. Robin Gross 14. Tapani Tarvainen 15. David Cake [We need 10 more to volunteer for the NomCom] Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. 1. Asif Kabani 2. Rudi Vansnick 3. Sonigitu Ekpe 4. Imran Ahmed Shah 5. Fouad Bajwa 6. Katim S Touray Note: Chun Eung Hwi and Carlos Vera Quintana both volunteered but awaiting clarification as to what specifically they are volunteering for NomCom or MAG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 11 05:20:50 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:20:50 +0800 Subject: [governance] I volunteered MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) In-Reply-To: <20131110193548.14491gp33txnqb8k@www.ciencitec.com> References: <20131110193548.14491gp33txnqb8k@www.ciencitec.com> Message-ID: <5280AF82.6040508@ciroap.org> On 11/11/13 08:35, jfcallo at ciencitec.com wrote: > Greetings, please accept my postulation volunteered for the NomCom I can only assume that the masters of the black box don't want me on the MAG, judging how many times I've been nominated and passed over. This may indicate that I can do more good outside the MAG than inside (to paraphase Groucho Marx, I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would accept me as a member). So I will put myself forward for the nomcom this year instead. -- *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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Mon Nov 11 07:35:09 2013 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 07:35:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 7days deadline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *Good morningPleas add me on the NomCom * Antonio Medina Gómez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet 2013/11/7 Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > Dear All > > Further to Izumi Aizu's message about generating names for the MAG by 1 > December, 2013, this is an urgent call for both names of volunteers for > those who wish to be considered for the following:- > > 1)NomCom to appoint MAG > 2)Those who wish to be considered for selection for the MAG > > Please send in your expression of interest and clearly indicate it in the > Subject line > by stating either NomCom (MAG) or MAG Candidate > > For those wishing to be apply as MAG candidates, please send a brief about > yourself, a link to your CV and describe involvement in existing, current > IGF foras. Also list your possible conflicts of interest and declare any > interests if any. Also describe why you think you will make a good MAG > member and what value you can bring to the MAG and also to the IGC and > broader civil society. Describe principles and values you ascribe to. This > will help the NomCom in their selection process. Given the short time we > have, the call for names is open 7 days and will be closed immediately > after 7 days to give time to the NomCom to make their selection. This will > mean that the NomCom can start work on the 25th November, 2013. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > izumi > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Chengetai Masango > Date: 2013/11/7 > Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal > To: MAG List IGF > > > Dear All, > > Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on > the MAG renewal process for 2014. > The hard deadline for the submission of names is *1 December 2013*. > > For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder > group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating > the selection process would be appreciated. > > I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your > respective stakeholder groups. > > Best regards, > > Chengetai > > A separate NomCom mailing list will be created to faciltate the process. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Chengetai Masango > Date: 2013/11/7 > Subject: [IGFmaglist] MAG Renewal > To: MAG List IGF > > > Dear All, > > Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo of UNDESA has issued a statement on > the MAG renewal process for 2014. > The hard deadline for the submission of names is *1 December 2013*. > > For organisations that submit groups of names on behalf of a stakeholder > group (or subdivision of a stakeholder group) some documentation stating > the selection process would be appreciated. > > I would be grateful if you could publicise the announcement to your > respective stakeholder groups. > > Best regards, > > Chengetai > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Mon Nov 11 08:19:50 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:19:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] E-conference Tuesday: Is There A Third Way For The Internet: Neither The US Nor The UN But Independence? #governance Message-ID: As all are likely aware Internet Governance is going through somewhat of an existential crisis, following the WCIT in Dubai last year, compounded by circumstances that are now universally referred to as "recent events", leading up to the Montevideo statement, and the announcement of a summit to be held in Brazil next year. Much discussion has taken place over the last two weeks at the IGF in Bali, and the IETF in Vancouver, much of it dedicated to finding workable solutions that will maintain the independence and integrity of the global open Internet. This e-conference promises to markedly further that discussion. Note that it will be relayed on the ISOC Chapters livestream channel. joly posted: "On November 12th at 12:00pm EST Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) will host an e-conference on Internet Governance titled: “Is There A Third Way For The Internet: Neither The US Nor The UN But Independence?” The conference asks the question "" [image: CITI]On Tuesday November 12th at 12:00pm EST the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) will host an e-conference on Internet Governance titled: “*Is There A Third Way For The Internet: Neither The US Nor The UN But Independence?*”The conference asks the question "Are there models of internet governance that establish internet independence from the US without the UN or other governments expanding their influence or control? What are their advantages and disadvantages?” Speakers include:*Eli Noam*, Director, CITI; *John Curran*, President and CEO, American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN); *Alejandro Pisanty*, Director of Computing Academic Services, National Autonomous University of Mexico, ICANN Board Member; *Harold Feld*, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge; *Fred Goldstein*, Interisle Consulting Group, Senior Member of the IEEE; *Milton Mueller*, Professor, Syracuse University; and *Raul Katz*, Director of Business Strategy Research, Columbia Institute for Tele-Information. The conference will be on webex, but will also be relayed via the Internet Society Chapters Webcast Channel . *What*: CITI e-conference: Is There A Third Way For The Internet? *Where*: Webex - (Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-479-3207 Access code:731 150 813) *When*: Tuesday November 12th at Noon-2pm EST | 1700-1900 UTC *Webcast*: http://livestream.com/internetsocietychapters *Twitter*: none but, say, #thirdway Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6092 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.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 ca at cafonso.ca Mon Nov 11 08:42:39 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:42:39 -0200 Subject: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC Message-ID: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> Dear people, Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet. Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such, and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet requires periodic revisions. The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF should follow, as described in its paragraph 72: ------ 72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to: a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body. c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview. d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities. e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world. f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries. g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations. h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources. k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users. l) Publish its proceedings. ------ It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF. First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented forum, not merely a sequence of events. Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which have been basically ignored by the UN. The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the expertises needed to carry out this challenge . It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process. As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has revealed some worrying weaknesses . The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing countries. It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of the various views of the working group in relation to themes of cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is attached in PDF] The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively, significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG and the WSIS process is inevitable . One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report. Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate below. A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their suggestions: ------ Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and Observers 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and responsibilities of all participants; 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva Declaration of Principles; 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance; 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75; 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for Enhanced Cooperation; 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms spring into existence organically as they are needed and that there is no need to create new mechanisms in a top down manner; 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking into account, its multi-stakeholder nature; 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation; 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the larger IGF community; 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the recommendations of the CSTD WG on IGF Improvements including its mandate to give advice to the functional Internet governance and management organizations; 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters within their mandates; 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal footing; 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to participate in the IGF. 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced. ------ In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance. On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden: ------ - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative working methods such as remote participation. - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate through capactity building, including but not limited to, training programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing. - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates affordable access for all stakeholders. - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships. ------ At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC. fraternal regards --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Summary_of_the_responses_nov_2013.pdf Type: application/x-download Size: 324872 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tunis_agenda_information_society_EN.pdf Type: application/x-download Size: 249221 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 Mon Nov 11 09:00:14 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:00:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear IGC members, I would like to nominate Imran Ahmed Shah for the position as Co-cordinator. I feel very honoured that Ginger should have nominated me, and I am very grateful to all those who have given me their support, but I also feel that it is important to the IGC's survival that there should be a choice of nominees, and I know that Imran has had nominations on previous occasions. I also feel that he may be able to bring a different perspective to the work that the co-coordinators need to do. I have asked Imran and he told me that he would accept nomination. I hope that before nominations close on 1st December there will be other candidates as well who would be willing to give their time Best wishes Deirdre. On 10 November 2013 08:23, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Further to the *June 6, 2013* notice for calls for coordinator, we are > happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on December > 1, 2013. > > For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, > there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of > candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was why > we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about candidates. > This year, we started making early calls to start thinking about nominating > someone or standing for the elections for the 2014-2016 term. > > We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating > yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please liaise > with them and nominate them on the list. > > *The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 *to allow for elections. > having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I thought I > should add some reflections that may help those who are thinking of > standing or to encourage people to stand. > > *Reflections * > The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the facilitation > of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and encouraging > members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the Charter and > providing a platform for advocacy. The role and responsibilities will be an > opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes antagonistic views. It requires > strength, courage and emotional intelligence to manage the > responsibilities. For me personally, it has been an incredible opportunity > learning about dealing with diverse voices and I can say that I have learnt > the discipline of restraint where at times I have had to hold back my view > because facilitators have to have some form of neutrality and act in the > best interests of the IGC community. > > Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the > assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs to be > clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the majority before > deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time for Internet > Governance. > > The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC > community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally with > the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. > > *Current Nominations Received* > > 1. Deirdre Williams > 2. x > 3. x > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in >> standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to >> nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So >> that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to >> choose from. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “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 snegho at gmail.com Mon Nov 11 09:36:55 2013 From: snegho at gmail.com (Snehashish Ghosh) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:06:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC In-Reply-To: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Dear All, Are the transcripts from the 2nd Meeting of WGEC archived online? A link would be really helpful. Thank you. Regards, Snehashish On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear people, > > Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting > just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest > edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in > Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. > > In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the > advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this > phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always > taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to > suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet. > > Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in > PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed > -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has > not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such, > and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet > requires periodic revisions. > > The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF > should follow, as described in its paragraph 72: > > ------ > 72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, > to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum > for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance > Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to: > > a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet > governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, > stability and development of the Internet. > > b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and > discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body. > > c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other > institutions on matters under their purview. > > d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in > this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific > and technical communities. > > e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the > availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world. > > f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing > and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from > developing countries. > > g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant > bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > recommendations. > > h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing > countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. > > i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS > principles in Internet governance processes. > > j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources. > > k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse > of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users. > > l) Publish its proceedings. > ------ > > It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF. > First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented > forum, not merely a sequence of events. > > Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be > generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which > have been basically ignored by the UN. > > The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its > mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda > have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which > is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically > on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the > expertises needed to carry out this challenge . > > It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or > might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it > might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process. > > As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced > cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development > (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN > General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has > revealed some worrying weaknesses . > > The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the > production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There > were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil > society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the > business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing > countries. > > It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including > the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the > APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of > the various views of the working group in relation to themes of > cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is > attached in PDF] > > The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal > the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis > Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet > Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively, > significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics > possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group > difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to > group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group > ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The > perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG > and the WSIS process is inevitable . > > One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants > are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not > necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar > to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both > the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report. > > Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this > process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate > below. > > A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an > interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and > possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for > easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of > the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and > consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their > suggestions: > > ------ > Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and > Observers > > 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a > reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living > document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and > responsibilities of all participants; > > 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined > by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles > were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva > Declaration of Principles; > > 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it > and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance; > > 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended > in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75; > > 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for > Enhanced Cooperation; > > 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms spring into existence organically > as they are needed and that there is no need to create new mechanisms > in a top down manner; > > 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand > internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking > into account, its multi-stakeholder nature; > > 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda > defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation; > > 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that > are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion > Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the > larger IGF community; > > 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the recommendations of the CSTD WG on > IGF Improvements including its mandate to give advice to the functional > Internet governance and management organizations; > > 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the > IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters > within their mandates; > > 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF > process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other > stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal > footing; > > 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to > participate in the IGF. > > 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all > stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and > to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced. > ------ > > In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but > essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced > cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around > these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative > processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the > generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance. > > On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the > governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden: > > ------ > - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of > all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet > governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative > working methods such as remote participation. > > - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate > through capactity building, including but not limited to, training > programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing. > > - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and > consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates > affordable access for all stakeholders. > > - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to > empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework > that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights > online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support > mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships. > ------ > > At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can > help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Nov 11 10:10:44 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:10:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] MIPOC In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@ser ver1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts. As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities). > > For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy". > > However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. > ... Wolfgang - I've been staring at the above paragraphs for several days, and have come to the conclusion that I agree in the abstract but not with some of the specifics... I _do_ agree that "there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into account that different stakeholders have different but shared responsibilities)" Furthermore, I believe that an Internet policy matter "clearing house", or (as Lee suggests, staff capacity to provide that capability) might also be quite helpful, although the details of such may prove vexing. (Jeremy's proposal is also an intriguing start here...) The area of less agreement would be in ability to distinguish Internet public policy issues from Internet day-to-day operational issues, particularly when it comes to judging these issues with respect to the existing Internet registry systems... It is simply not possible for all issues to be considered as a political matter, otherwise every item of Internet operations of "critical Internet resources" would be also a potential public policy issue, and the Internet would quickly bog down with thousands of routine administrative tasks on hold, pending being cleared of political implications... For example, the development of a schedule of DNS reserved names definitely has public policy implications, but once it has been established, then it allows registry operations to proceed without having to send each and every individual registration request within each subdomain to a body of public policy experts to individually review and approve. Similarly, policies for IP address management are developed in each of the regions (and there are indeed public policy aspects to IP address policies); the subsequent implementation and routine operations per those policies should not be a political matter (so long as there is fidelity in implementation and execution to the developed policies.) The actual boundary I refer to is not "political vs technical"; it's the policy development (which needs to consider both technical and public policy aspects) vs routine, day-to-day administrative and operational tasks (which must function independently but with fidelity to the developed policies) This does not in any way detract from your keen observation regarding the need for "bottom up enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration"; I just want to make sure we don't lose the distinction of policy development vs policy implementation and execution. Thanks for the thoughtful response! /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Luckily, discussion of Internet cooperation matters is a routine administrative task for me, otherwise these email would be held pending approval via a more formal development process... -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Nov 11 10:16:44 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:16:44 -0200 Subject: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC In-Reply-To: References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5280F4DC.2020701@cafonso.ca> Grande Snehashish, the transcripts for the three days are attached as plain text files. Have fun! I also copy to the Best Bits list. fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/11/2013 12:36 PM, Snehashish Ghosh wrote: > Dear All, > > Are the transcripts from the 2nd Meeting of WGEC archived online? > A link would be really helpful. > > Thank you. > > Regards, > Snehashish > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: > > Dear people, > > Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting > just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest > edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in > Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. > > In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the > advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this > phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always > taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to > suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet. > > Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in > PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed > -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has > not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such, > and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet > requires periodic revisions. > > The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF > should follow, as described in its paragraph 72: > > ------ > 72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive > process, > to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum > for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance > Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to: > > a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet > governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, > stability and development of the Internet. > > b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and > discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body. > > c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other > institutions on matters under their purview. > > d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in > this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific > and technical communities. > > e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the > availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world. > > f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing > and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from > developing countries. > > g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant > bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > recommendations. > > h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing > countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. > > i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS > principles in Internet governance processes. > > j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources. > > k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse > of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users. > > l) Publish its proceedings. > ------ > > It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF. > First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented > forum, not merely a sequence of events. > > Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be > generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which > have been basically ignored by the UN. > > The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its > mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda > have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which > is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically > on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the > expertises needed to carry out this challenge . > > It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or > might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it > might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process. > > As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced > cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development > (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN > General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has > revealed some worrying weaknesses . > > The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the > production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There > were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil > society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the > business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing > countries. > > It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including > the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the > APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of > the various views of the working group in relation to themes of > cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is > attached in PDF] > > The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal > the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis > Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet > Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively, > significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics > possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group > difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to > group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group > ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The > perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG > and the WSIS process is inevitable . > > One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants > are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not > necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar > to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both > the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report. > > Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this > process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate > below. > > A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an > interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and > possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for > easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of > the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and > consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their > suggestions: > > ------ > Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and > Observers > > 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a > reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living > document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and > responsibilities of all participants; > > 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined > by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles > were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva > Declaration of Principles; > > 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it > and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance; > > 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended > in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75; > > 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for > Enhanced Cooperation; > > 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms spring into existence organically > as they are needed and that there is no need to create new mechanisms > in a top down manner; > > 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand > internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking > into account, its multi-stakeholder nature; > > 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda > defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation; > > 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that > are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion > Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the > larger IGF community; > > 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the recommendations of the CSTD WG on > IGF Improvements including its mandate to give advice to the functional > Internet governance and management organizations; > > 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the > IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters > within their mandates; > > 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF > process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other > stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal > footing; > > 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to > participate in the IGF. > > 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all > stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and > to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced. > ------ > > In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but > essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced > cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around > these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative > processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the > generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance. > > On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the > governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden: > > ------ > - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of > all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet > governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative > working methods such as remote participation. > > - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate > through capactity building, including but not limited to, training > programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing. > > - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and > consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates > affordable access for all stakeholders. > > - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to > empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework > that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights > online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support > mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships. > ------ > > At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can > help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- 6 November, 2013 Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation 10:00 a.m. Geneva, Switzerland (Gavel). >>CHAIR MAJOR: Ladies and gentlemen. (Gavel). >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good morning. Can you please take your seats. I would like to start in one minute. Thank you. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the second meeting of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. I hope we are going to have a fruitful meeting during the three days, as proof was we had the last time, which was much shorter but very efficient. I would like to greet the remote participants. I hope they are with us. And I would like to (indiscernible) to be members of the group. I would like to greet the observers who are with us. As I told you, this is the second meeting of the working group. And as usual, meetings start with the mandate. Probably you know it by heart -- (beeping) -- but it is always useful to reiterate what the mandate of the group. The mandate from the United Nations General Assembly resolution, resolution 67/195/2012, which invites the Chair of the CSTD to establish a working group on enhanced cooperation -- (beeping) -- to examine the mandate of the 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. The second part is issue a report to the CSTD in 2014. Looking at the mandate, I think we are in a relatively good position. We have already fulfilled the first part that we were seeking and compiling the input. And we had a summary which was sent out to the members of the group and which has been posted on the Web site. Next one, please. Just a day before yesterday, I attended a presentation on a presentation where the owner and the CEO of the software explained to us that PowerPoint is always full of bullet points and full of text, and I think he was right. Unfortunately, my presentation had already been written at that time so I managed to get one picture in it which shows the process we are going through. So we have talked about the United Nations General Assembly's resolution. The working group has been established. We seek the inputs from the stakeholders. And right now, we have to review the inputs. And, finally, we have to give some recommendations to the CSTD next year with the view that there would be a resolution passed to the ECOSOC. And, finally, it goes back to the United Nations General Assembly. What I expect from this meeting, I expect that we will respect the mandate, and I will make my best that it is going to be like that. I would like to call your attention that we are a group constituted of all stakeholders; that is, a multistakeholder approach. And last time I think we have managed to establish the mutual trust, and it was very useful. That was the reason the meeting was really successful. The meeting -- last time we decided to have allow observers to the meeting, and we also decided that ECOSOC rules apply. In this meeting, we have observers. We have remote participation. We have audio streaming, if I'm not wrong. And, hopefully, we have scribes who are going to give us transcripts of the meeting. So all the promises were kept we have made last time, and I hope this will contribute to the success of this meeting. Naturally, we have to keep in mind that we have some constraints. We have time constraints. We have resources, which are very scarce. And we have the -- I was really afraid that we have constraints as far as the venue's concerned, but right now I'm happy to see there are still some seats which are available. And, hopefully, the members of the group will arrive. I have already received some minutes from some members about late arrival, so I hope they will make it to Geneva. And I think they will contribute also to the success of our meeting. Next one. We had the first physical meeting last May, on the 30th of May and the 31st of May. We decided to have further meetings, three days each. This is the second meeting we have. And based on the results we achieve today, we may have one or two more meetings. It is up to you. In case we have two meetings, I would suggest to have it in January and February. But we are going to discuss it later. However, I have to make my report by the end of February, beginning of March and submit the recommendations hopefully to the CSTD in May. So I'm very optimistic, as usual. I count on you for the cooperation, and I hope that we're going to achieve good results in a very particular period we are in now. But at the same time, I have to tell you that I think we are in a privileged position. We are in a position where we can contribute to something which is very important, and I would like to call your attention to this fact that we should take this meeting in this spirit. We are privileged to be in this group and to be in this discussion. You may recall that during the first meeting, we had a very long discussion about the agenda, the procedural issues. And we had breakout groups led by Brazil and India. In the breakout groups, we identified categories and the suggested questions. I think this approach was very useful. This was really very useful. It allowed us to have very open discussions, and then we got back to the plenary. We managed to finalize the questions in a very short while and the result of it was the questionnaire which you know by heart, I think. So I have to emphasize again, that the first meeting, we had excellent collaboration, and I hope that we are going to continue this way. As I mentioned, we agreed at the meeting to have all the facilities, that is, all the streaming, the transcript, and we agreed with the remote participation. And the real result was the questionnaire which has been posted and sent out to the members of the group. Next. What are the resources for our second meeting? Basically I think -- (feedback in the audio). Okay. So this is not the resource oddly. Well, first of all, the first resource is the questionnaire itself, which is more important for the contributions from the respondents. You may note that the responses were grouped by questions at one time and then they were grouped by respondents as well. We found that we had about 1,000-page contributions, which you can't handle in a meeting like that. The idea came that eventually we should have a summary of the responses and the summary has been prepared and has been sent out to you and also has been posted on the Web site. I give the link to the Web site on the slide. And probably in case you have difficulties, which I think you may have difficulties finding still things on the CSTD Web site, so here's the link. And probably if you still have difficulties, you can come to the secretariat and they will help you. Next slide. So the questionnaire was made up 18 questions. One was about the stakeholder itself. One question was a quite open question in case we missed something. And, basically, it reflected the consensus of the working group on topics relevant to the enhanced cooperation. We had an extended deadline, which was the 17th of September. I have extended it, I think, twice or three times and -- next one. In the end, we have 69 responses. The 69 responses, you can see the distribution of these responses. We had 29 governments, 23 civil society, 11 technical community and academia and eight businesses. It's -- I leave it to you to judge whether this is enough or it's few. That's what we have. I think the responses gave us a very, very rich input for future work. After analysis of the responses, I suggested to group the responses. That is, in five groups to facilitate all future work. In group A, they are the replies related to the implementation of the Tunis Agenda and these are questions 2 and 3. Group B replies related to public policy issues and possible mechanisms, questions 4, 8 and 9. In group C, we have replies to stakeholders, questions, 5, 6, 7, 14 and 17. In group D, we have replies to developing countries which are questions 10 and 15. And, finally, in group E, we have replies to barriers for participation in enhanced cooperation which are questions 11, 12, 13 and 16. What are we going to do in the second meeting? Well, first of all, we have to agree on the agenda and the procedural questions. After having agreed on that, probably we should identify and agree on topics and categories; that is, the grouping I've suggested to you. And we have to discuss responses to the questionnaire. During the meeting, we are going to create a rolling document which will reflect the discussions we are having now. And to my best hope, on the third day, we may start drafting recommendations. I know this is very ambitious, but we have to do it. And, of course, there are some other issues to be discussed as we decide on the date of the next meeting. What I suggested is for the time management, we have all meetings starting in the morning at 10:00 and we have the meeting in the morning up until 1:00 in the afternoon. In between, I would suggest you have a segment for observers, a 15-minute segment for observers that they may take the floor and give any observations they have and then we will have a coffee break, also 15 minutes. So probably it will be kind of flexible, but that's what I suggest. We will have a lunch break from 1:00 to 3:00. And in the afternoon, we will have a kind of similar arrangement. That is, we will have our discussions and we will have an observer segment from 4:15 to 4:30 followed by again a coffee break, and we shall work until 6:00 in the evening. Frankly speaking, I don't intend to go beyond 6:00. Naturally, if it's needed, of course, we can do it. But I have been reminded that the room is available up until 7:00, 7:30. But I don't believe that we will use this time. It's my best hope that we're not going to do that. So, basically, these were the introductory remarks. As for the observers, we have to respect the rules of the ECOSOC. That is, member states who are not members of the working group can take the floor first and other observers can follow. But I would like to remind you that this is a working group. We came here to work. We came here not to make statements but to make recommendations. And in this spirit -- and I think you share this approach, I sincerely hope you do -- so I would like to encourage you to contribute in this sense. So after that, I would suggest that we go directly to the agenda. And probably you have it. Can you share it with us? Thank you. So, basically, the agenda reflects what I said in my introductory remarks, including the time management. It's more general than what I think we should be doing. It doesn't talk about the grouping, but I really encourage you that we should work in this way; that is, take the groups of questions and discuss them in groups by topics. So I ask you if the agenda is acceptable. Yes, Marilyn. Before you take the floor, I would like to ask you to identify yourself always shortly. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. My name is Marilyn Cade. I'm one of the participants from the business community. And greetings, all colleagues. It is a pleasure to be back together. My only comment -- And I want to thank you for the preparation both that you have put together and the time you've dedicated, Chair, but also to the secretariat. My only comment -- actually it is twofold. One is perhaps as we get into the discussion, we may find the need to flexibly adjust the agenda. Some of the questions, responses may take more detailed discussion than others. And so I'd like to ask for that. And then, secondly, if we could ask the secretariat to make your presentation -- to send it out to the full list. It is a bit challenging to find the information on the Web site, and it would be great to have your presentation and any other documents e-mailed out to the full list so that we could keep in touch on documents that are presented in the room. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. Naturally, the agenda will be flexible. We will follow whatever is the natural way of discussion. As for my presentation, I have made the last update this morning. Probably it was about 9:30. So -- but you will have the presentation, and I think it's already on the Web site. And to find things on the CSTD Web site, I would go with it is not a challenge but a kind of test of ability of how you manage to get around. It's really to test your capabilities. So having said that, any other comment on the agenda? Do we agree that we go by the way I suggested; that is, grouping the questions as they were? Okay, in that case the agenda is accepted. (Gavel). One thing I want to add, I mentioned that in the first meeting, we worked in a mixed way. By that I mean we worked in one part of the meeting in plenary mode and then we had the breakout groups. I would suggest that we should do the same way depending how our discussion is going to proceed to discuss questions in breakout groups, then come to the plenary, and have the whole plenary involved in the further discussions. We shall see how it goes, but I think this was a very efficient way of doing things. The breakout groups won't discuss different issues. They will discuss the same issues. And they will probably come to some kind of conclusion, and these conclusions can be merged. And that is the idea. But given the time and especially the amount of work we have to do, I think we should find always the best way to proceed so that is the way I suggest. So I really suggest to go straight to group Number 1 and attack the questions which are in group Number 1. That is Questions 2 and 3. I would give you some two minutes to go through Questions Number 2 and 3 and look through the analysis of these questions and eventually, if you wish, you can go to the responses as well. This allows us to solve some kind of technical problem we have with the audio streaming. Please take your time and look into the Questions 2 and 3 and we shall resume in two minutes. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So I can see that you are ready to discuss questions 2 and 3. So just to remind you, Question Number 2, "What do you think is the significance, purpose, and scope of enhanced cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda?" And Question Number 3, "To what extent has or hasn't enhanced cooperation been implemented?" So the floor is yours. So based on the input we have, and based on the analysis which has been provided to you, I would like to ask you to do your contributions but try and restrict yourself to what I said in my initial remarks, to the mandate we have, to the agreed text we had, and try to discuss in this way. Yes, Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to all colleagues. First of all, I want to congratulate you personally for the amount of work invested and for the document which is provided to us. As you have indicated, you had the challenge to deal with so many contributions and the document, the analyses of the responses I think is a very good basis for our work. Of course, there are some notions, some nuances that are not captured into this document and I -- I understand there will be plenty of opportunity to come back to some things that are missing there from the perspective of participants would be important. However, I think it really captures most of the essence of what we should be discussing today and in our next meetings. The point I want to make is that I think that maybe we should, on the basis of the compilation we have before us, try to identify what are the core issues that require discussion among us. Even taken into account there are different approaches to the way the questions are framed, I feel there is a large degree of consensus around some issues, the recognition of progress made, on the recognition of the value of working a multistakeholder environment. Depending on the participants, the emphasis is put on -- more on the aspect of having a half glass that is full or half glass that is empty. But I think there is some large degree of consensus that we have moved forward, to a large extent, since 2005. But I can also feel that even for those who agree that enhanced cooperation, to some extent, is already taking place and that maybe do not have -- do not need new mechanisms but need to -- even for these little things that we need to improve (typing) I think there is one notion we should maybe discuss, what we need to improve on existing mechanisms and on the other hand, as I go through the responses, on the other hand we have a group of participants that say that something else should be there. So I think maybe decided to -- maybe basic notion should be worked around in order to implement the mandate we have to provide advice on how to fully implement -- fully implement from the part of the conclusion what we have and if needed to come up with something else that would add to this. I think we should -- as you, Chair, have indicated, not lose time around issues that are consensus among us. The recognition of the multistakeholder model, the value of what we have achieved so far. That we have tried to focus on things that have emerged as differences and try to elaborate, if possible, to come to some consensus on these. Otherwise, to explicitly spell out what are the differences so we can come up with some meaningful document for the report. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ambassador. I understand what you're saying. How I would like to lead this group is first come to questions where we do have common understanding because in my mind we have to give them some kind of mutual trust and mutual understanding and then we can discover the differences. So if we agree that on some issues -- and I hope there are really many issues that we agree on -- then we can discuss those ones which we do not agree on and we can come to some kind of common understanding and try to understand each other, what we don't think is right, what we don't think is -- hasn't -- which hasn't been implemented. So I really encourage you first to come to this way of building this mutual trust and further building the mutual trust. But at the end of the day, I think we do agree that we have to come up with recommendations in the spirit you mentioned, how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation. I do agree with that. Probably I have a kind of slightly different approach. I would like to build on the consensual issues first, and it would give us some -- let's face it, good feeling and then we can build on that. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you very much, Chair, and to a very good morning to all colleagues in the room. And it's good to see so many familiar faces. We've sat through a fairly good amount of time last time in the last meeting. I think at the outset allow me, Mr. Chair, to formally congratulate you on behalf of my delegation for your commitment and your -- I would use the word "leadership" in guiding the process. The effort that has gone into so far in preparing a kind of questionnaire followed by responses received and thereafter a report has been prepared, a summary, I think you have been very careful in using the word "summary" rather than saying -- attributing any particular notion to (indiscernible) or otherwise it is responses that have been received. I think it is good. Firstly, the approach that you recommended, we fully support this. And also I'd like to acknowledge one colleague's recommendation that to keep the agenda a little flexible so that we place it according to the rhythm and so the progress we would be making as we go along. So these are the two, I think, pillars on which we can proceed. Thirdly, just a quick comment on India's responses and certain changes that we have reflected towards the last (indiscernible). Just to inform colleagues in the room that with regards to questions 6 and 8, we of course submitted after the due date, just a recognition to be -- to be made in this room that India has data it supplied on Question Number 6 and 8, which we have forwarded to the Secretariat and we hope that we will bring to the discussion forum as we go along. That's the first point I would like to make. Coming to the replies that have been received as far as the report that has been submitted, I think it's important at the outset to make certain recognition of the fact that it is a fairly small sample of responses that we have received, which is known by the numbers, the very fact that there are so many responses only. But the -- the beauty of the responses as we see it is that they cover a large and entire diversity of opinions that we -- we have been hearing and we have been -- we have heard in the earlier discussions. So we have the advantage of reflecting on those opinions as we go along. At the same time, I think -- actually a particular direction which responses have given I think we need to be slightly cautious on that. So we will be making the distinction as we go along, because in the agenda you have designed that we move towards, based on the responses that we have received, we would make steps forward, next steps forward. I guess that is the right way to do things, but again, with this little caution, that we would like -- at least my delegation would like to bear in mind which we thought it's good to let it be known. As regard to the response 2 and 3, which is to the five categories that you have proposed, I think if we could respond to these five categories of questions, I think we would have covered the entire spectrum to which we have recommended -- the desire which we have started we will achieve. We fully endorse this five categories approach and thereby now you focus on Question 2 and 3. Again, from our perspective, we have categorically said not much progress has been made, but when we said this it is specific to paragraph 68 and 69 of the Tunis Agenda. But there is recognition certainly that the very fact that we have been able to look at things starting in 2005 till now, it is -- there's no denying of this fact that there is an enhanced cooperation already taking place. Again, at what levels? There are many stakeholders in this process and as a representative of the government in this working group, we find that it is lacking, to a large extent. And there is recognition to this fact, and again, going through this process of looking at Tunis Agenda as a basis. So with that in mind, I think we -- we would like to see a kind of -- a kind of a determination at this point in time. Because if you say that we made progress and we achieved everything, then the rest of the questions have no relevance in this room. I mean, let's face it. I think we need to be realistic and we need to be practical in our own approach. So I do agree with our distinguished ambassador from Brazil who said that it's a half glass -- half full or half empty, but at the same time, yes, there is a recognition that there's a gap and we need to see what gap's are there and what, perhaps, would be the most appropriate recommendation that we can make. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. I'm really grateful for your remarks. One point I want to emphasize that we have taken the sample input, and some inputs have arrived late, but it doesn't prevent us to work, taking into consideration the replies we received. And naturally at the end of the day, as I always said, we have to do the work, the bulk of the work. And you can contribute naturally the way you would like to. And you can always express your views in the way you like to. So this is only a basis, the input, but the real work is going to be done here. And as for the Questions 2 and 3, whether the glass is full half or full empty, I'm always optimistic and I say it's full half. So let's fill the other half. Let's work in this way. I can see United States and then Parminder. >>UNITED STATES: Thank you very much, Chairman. This is, as you say, the United States. On behalf of my delegation I would be want to congratulate you for taking the -- for taking the daunting task of looking at a record of something like 1,000 pages and summarizing it to 25 pages. This is -- we were -- as I say, we offer our thanks. We had some of the same concerns and -- or perhaps observations is the way to put it, as the ambassador from Brazil and the last speaker from India. And by that, I would just summarize it in this way, that we recognize that there are challenges before us in terms of the work of this group. We recognize at the same time we have a very useful and helpful summary that identifies topics of real concern. We agree with the Brazilian ambassador, if we've understood it correctly, that not everything is captured in the -- in the 25-page summary, and that it's even fair to say that some things are missing. And I would just join hands with colleagues in wanting to make sure that we have a record, if you will, a summary, if you will, that represents, I think as Brazil put it, the core interests. I think in our words, the priority interest of countries and regions so that as we move to develop recommendations we are well-informed as to what countries and entities are thinking, what they think is good and what they need. So Chairman, just to offer our support in whatever way we can support putting that information together so that we are -- that we are -- that we have a strong foundation for reliable recommendations. We do have some ideas, but I'll stop right there and just offer our thanks to you and to join with other colleagues and recognize that this is a very helpful first step. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. You may remember that when I sent out the analysis of the questions, in my e-mail I mentioned that this is definitely a document which is not meant to replace the original contributions in the first -- it is not meant to be the only input. It is just to help with the further work. And I think it might be quite useful to streamline. I saw Parminder and Sweden. Sweden was first? Okay, Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks to the Secretariat for all the hard work. It has really been a mixed pleasure to go through all those pages. Those first that have not only waited for the summary but also that have read all the responses, but I think mostly it has been a pleasure because of the very well-thought answers and the wide range of opinions that are reflected in those answers. So we're very encouraged by that. We also obviously recognize, as stated by others, that this does not maybe reflect everyone's opinion. There is a limited number of answers, but we also would like to echo what was said by India, that it does at least give a very wide range of answers and we think that that is very good as a basis to start our work here today. Also, I would like to echo what was said by the Brazilian ambassador, that we think when we have read through these answers that it's quite encouraging to see that there are a lot of areas that we have consensus on, and we agree with the Chairman's approach that we should try to focus maybe first on those areas and then as a second step we should of course also try to see if we can find a convergence in the areas where there are outstanding issues. And I think also, it's important that we keep in mind when we discuss these issues, particularly maybe Question 2 and 3, that we have different interpretations of the concept of enhanced cooperation, and it's important that we respect the fact that we have different interpretations. I think that's the best basis we can have to move the work forward. But again, thank you for all your hard work and looking forward to working with everyone here. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. I'm Parminder Jeet Singh from India, IT for change. And good morning to everybody. And thank you, Chair and Secretariat, for putting together this excellent summary. And I heard observations that it does not capture everything which was always never possible, but I think what we have here is a basis to work on, a certain amount of categorizations which can then be filled, and then I think agreement categories initially is more possible and easier to work on and as we progress I would suggest that we do try to make categories of things and agree on categories first. And once you -- because categories are easier to agree on rather than specific viewpoints. And I also agree with India that these five categories which you have bunched the questions under look like a good way for us to work on rather than the questions one by one. As we agree on categories and then move categories to certain recommendations. And now I come to the questions under consideration which is 2 and 3. I think on 2, whether it has been fully implemented or not, I think people have exhausted their responses and there are all kinds and I would take a message of values view that. Let's focus on the fact that there is an agreement that's not fully implemented and talk about what are the gaps and that is kind of a consensus, that there is something which needs to be done rather than going back and forth. And agree whether it's fully implemented or not. And the gap part of it, what needs to be -- what needs to be done to fully implement what we do here and then remove other things out and that is something for us to work on. The fact that we all agree. And the response, there are public participations which need to be addressed which are not being addressed and that fact remains, and that is the focus of our work here today. And on the second question which is about the scope and the purposes, again, being tactical and going to the Tunis Agenda, I can see that again, categories is important and Tunis Agenda gives two or three categories. It says that the general public policy issues, there are public policy issues connected to critical Internet resources and there's a third basket which enhanced cooperation doesn't cover which is the day-to-day operations and these three baskets are there. And once you know there are three baskets, three areas, then this is something which Tunis Agenda has and I don't think is very controversial. And these categories are made without specifically committing to any view on -- under each you could possibly make progress. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. I can hear agreement, or partial agreement, on the categories we have, the groupings we have. I could also hear that probably, you know, we should sometime fall back to the Tunis Agenda, which naturally we do. However, we should also respect the mandate and we should discuss what is in the mandate, and I don't really think we should go beyond, unless we have some modification from the General Assembly end of this year. Having said that, are there any other contributions on these issues? I would remind you that we are discussing first matter issues go by the groups I suggested and second, in case we do, then which I think we had some kind of consensus but it's -- it may be a good way to discuss these issues, by groups, and if it is accepted, then we go by group 1, and we have Question Number 2 and 3. So I would like to hear your opinion on these two issues. Grouping is acceptable to all of us? Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, colleagues. First, thank the secretariat for the work that has been done and to facilitate our hard work. And we support the way forward to the meeting. I mean, with regard to question 2 and 3, I mean, the responses shows there's -- it is implemented, (inaudible), it is not implemented very well. We look forward to the output of this meeting, I mean, to come up with a recommendation to fully implement the mandate of the Tunis Agenda (indiscernible). One more comment, that the Saudi's response is the government's response by CITC. So I mean, if we can update it that it is the Saudi government. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. It is going to be done. Yes, Virat. >> VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, on my behalf and on behalf of the business, a big thanks to the secretariat and to yourself for arranging the text in the manner that you have done. It is quite spectacular to see a thousand pages down into 27, 26, depending how printouts have been taken or copies have been seen at. I just want to make one point about a general comment which is just as the delegate from India suggested we should leave it to discuss at a later stage on where we are going in terms of progress, et cetera, even though there are some basic agreements that are emerging right now, it would be helpful to also keep our mind open to while agreeing on categories that you have recommended in general, that some questions at some stage might need to move or partially move across categories. And if we can keep that flexibility as a principle in mind just as we would keep ourselves flexible towards the movement of -- in attempt to draft recommendations towards the end of this meeting. I think that would be helpful just so that we don't have it cast in concrete in the first one hour. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I think this was a very useful remark. And, naturally, I don't think everything is cast in concrete. So during the discussions, naturally, we will find that some issues may belong to more than one group, and we shall bring back these issues. Of course, we are going to be quite flexible as we did in the previous working group, and that's what we're going to do right now with your agreement. Any other contributions regarding groups, grouping, the approach we are taking and more concretely Group Number 1, Questions Number 2 and 3? It may be still too early. There's a remote participant. Yes, we are waiting for your intervention. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Joy Liddicoat here. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Hello, Joy. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, colleagues, for the introductory remarks. I also wanted to thank the secretariat for organizing this meeting and also to (indiscernible) in relation to the agenda announce that there are a number of remote participants, and we would ask on behalf of them, that those in the room do speak clearly and slowly so that the transcription and audio can catch their wide words. And also that if the group determines some group discussion is appropriate that we have some way to facilitate -- think about how to facilitate and ensure remote participation of the working group members. And I thank you, Chair, for your indulgence with the technicalities on that. Secondly, in relation to the summary and the submissions, I wanted to just acknowledge all of the submissions that have been received, and especially those from civil society, and to note that the summary, while it intends to catch both (indiscernible) and categories, I think it is clear that the summary is not -- it has been talked about a thousand pages of submissions. And there are some (indiscernible) for submissions. so I would ask that we refer to the submissions themselves and all of the work that's gone into those submissions by focusing on those and resisting the temptation to refer to the summary itself. Particularly, I notice that there are some submissions which have not been cited in the summary, for example. Thank you. Those are my initial remarks. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. Well, you reminded me of one of the obligations, that is, I didn't thank all those who have contributed to the work by answering the questionnaire. So I acknowledge all the work which has been done. So the breakout groups, I'm having also some concerns about the participation -- the remote participations, so I have to make some kind of decisions as far as the efficiency of our work versus the extent of participations. Probably the issue wouldn't come up until tomorrow afternoon or Friday morning. So we shall sort it out amongst ourselves. But we don't have to forget that the main task ahead of us is to give recommendations. And that is the -- what is in the mandate. So, eventually, we may have some restrictions -- technical restrictions from participations remotely. But I promise you that in the plenary, everything goes back to normal. As for the late submissions, naturally, we had to set limits and we had to deal with submissions which came within the extended target dates. So I fully agree that all submissions are extremely valuable, but we had to set some kind of time limit to consider submissions in the summary itself. It doesn't exclude them, however, to be discussed here but to be considered by this group. Any other contributions? Yes, ISOC. >> ISOC: Thank you, Chair. Allow me to start by commending the work of the secretariat. It is a remarkable work and extremely useful. I think the report is comprehensive and certainly offers a very good basis for our discussion. I would note that as expected the document mirrors a various positions on enhanced cooperation and multistakeholderism and this is not a surprise. However, there seems to be consensus on the fact that enhanced cooperation is already underway in some forms or another. There is room for improvement, of course, but progress was made since 2005 both in terms of enhancing cooperation between intergovernmental organizations and governments but also in terms of developing working relationships, trusted working relationships, among all stakeholder groups including civil society, business and the technical community. And I think this is very positive and encouraging. It is a very positive trend on which we can work. Another important consensus is remarkable around the value of the existing decentralized Internet ecosystem. And that came clearly through the reports that you shared and that the IGF, including national and regional IGFs, have a key role to play in furthering enhanced cooperation in the future. Overall, I think in terms of terminology, in terms of methodology, it is important for our group to build on areas where we can identify common ground and consensus such as the consensus I just described. And I'll just conclude by saying that the technical community is looking forward to working with all its colleagues towards a positive outcome. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I can see no one asking for the floor. So can I conclude that we agreed on the way -- the approach I suggested? Yes, Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Sorry, Chair. Marilyn Cade. But would you now turn to the observers then for their comments before we conclude on this topic? Is that how we're going to proceed so we hear from observers before we move to new topics? >>CHAIR MAJOR: We are not going to conclude on the topic. We are going to conclude on the approach we are going to work. I will ask the observers after we agreed on the approach. So can I conclude that we agree on the approach? Okay. And having said that, we have already discussed point Number 1 or Group Number 1 with Questions 2 and 3. But I don't think we have concluded on that. So now I turn to observers, if they have any comments. Please be brief in case you take the floor and identify yourself when you take the floor. Anyone from the observers who would like to comment? Yes. >> MATTHEW SHEARS: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. It is a pleasure to be here. I just thought it would be useful for everybody if, perhaps, also, in my case, I introduce myself so you're aware of who are the observers are. My name is Matthew Shears. I am the director for Global Internet Policy and Human Rights with the Center of Democracy and Technology. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Yes? >> Thank you, Chair. I would just like to follow what Matthew said. I'm here on behalf of Global Partners, an Internet policy organization based in the United Kingdom. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: I'll just follow the pattern. I'm Sam Dickinson. I was a member on the last CSTD working group on IGF improvements, and I'm a freelance Internet governance consultant. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. In case we don't have any other intervention, I suggest to have the coffee break now. It's well-deserved. And probably after coffee break, we come back at quarter to 12:00. So this time I'm going to be to be very generous. We are going to have half-an-hour coffee break. But, please, make sure that during the coffee break, you work. You have the important conversations and discuss the issues. Thank you. So we come back at quarter to 12:00. [ Break ] (Gavel). >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for being on time. Please take your seat. So good morning again. I have one small announcement. We have a box here, and I would like you to put your business card. I'm told by the secretariat that unfortunately there's no prize at the end of the meeting and there's no drawing and you are not going to win anything. But you are kindly requested to put your business card for the record. Frankly, I would have liked to have some prize, but anyway... So I hope you had a very pleasant coffee break and during the coffee break you had opportunity to discuss the issues we have had before the break. And I would like to resume the meeting by saying that we have agreed on the approach, that we are going to discuss the issues by groups. Naturally, the groups aren't rigid, so the questions in the groups may be reclassified or some parts of them may be reclassified to other groups, but it is really up to us. I have also made clear that the bulk of the work is going to be done here, meaning that in case you think you have made some contributions and you think to change or modify or to update it, probably you can do it by eventually distributing a room paper. I don't think that this is the time to do it on the Web site. But I would like to emphasize again that we shall take all the considerations into account and it will be done during the meeting. So this is -- I think it is quite important. It's our task to give the recommendations. So having said that, let's go back to our work. We have started the review of the first group and the two questions in the first group. I concluded that there was a kind of general feeling about the glass being half empty or half full. As I told you, I tend to be of the opinion to be on the positive side, and let's say it's half full and let's discuss how to make it completely full. Any observations on questions 2 and 3 or any other observation on what we have discussed up till now? Good. We are going at a very good pace. So I suggest, in that case, that we go to group 2 and I leave you some time to go through the questions we have in group 2. I believe probably an additional five minutes will be enough for you to go through and to have your ideas and your contributions prepared for the group. So I give you five minutes and we start discussing group 2 and the questions in group 2. (Silence). >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I believe you have had time to review what we are going to talk about, question 4, 8 and 9. And I have been informed that Joy Liddicoat wants to take the floor. Joy, the floor is yours, remote participant. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Peter. I just want to make a point about the submission summary which we have been reading. I just want to note and put on the record that there is an error in the summary, particularly the first one on page 4 which purports to cite the Association for Progressive Communication's submission. It is actually citing the Best Bits submission. And, in fact, all of the APC references in the document appear to be to that Best Bits' submission. And I'm just very concerned about that because their submissions are actually different and make different points. I also note that in reference to a (indiscernible) submission here which does not appear in the list of submissions but it appears to be a government submission. So I'm just a little bit concerned about the focus of our discussions being reliant on this document. And I'm wondering how we might deal with that. One option is to deal with it as a document in the room, not as a matter of record. But I think some guidance from the other working group members on this point. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. It is very useful. Probably this is not the only error we have in it. And thank you for pointing out these errors. I'm sure this will be corrected in a very short while. As I said at the outset, this is a kind of attempt to streamline and downsize the contributions to help us to work, taking into account there may be some errors in it. And I made it also clear that this is not -- it doesn't replace the contributions that we received. Our discussions will be based on the contributions and, more importantly, on the work we are going to do here or remotely you may contribute. But I promise you errors pointed out will be corrected. ITU. >>ITU: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I just wanted to highlight a paragraph on page 4, A special remark from a civil society organization on ideals, activities and its collaboration regarding plenipotentiary resolution 101, 102 -- there was a mistake there -- 102 and 133. We would just like to highlight ITU was working with the organizations listed and many of the organizations active in the area in the spirit of the plenipotentiary resolution. And we do report annually to our governing body's council and also other bodies on this cooperation. We would be happy to provide more information on this. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, (saying name). In this room, we are aware of the great work the ITU is doing, at least myself I am aware Any other comments? Yes, Parminder? >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. Parminder. And I think we would acknowledge that with this second set, we are into the meatiest part of our work. We are talking about public policy issues and gaps and the mechanisms that may be needed. And I wonder whether we should approach it -- I mean, otherwise, it is just too open-ended and we approach it through making certain categories. I mean, that would kind of, you know, make it a little more understandable, the kind of things we are talking about. For example, I heard in the morning the statement being made that everybody welcomes the decentralized architecture of Internet governance. The technical community representative said that. And even in the summary, we see that with regard to Internet governance, the majority of the respondents value the existing decentralized Internet governance ecosystem, which includes -- and it goes on. But a substantial group of respondents is also open to consider the launch of new mechanisms. Now, these actually are two different things. The ones who agree on the decentralized system which exists, I understand is already the technical and logical infrastructure system. A lot of people agree actually, including me, on that. The "but" part about people wanting a new mechanism largely refers to a very defense side of the enhanced cooperation landscape. And if we keep on talking across these areas, we would not make progress because people would say we agree to the existing decentralized systems. They are saying we need a new mechanism. And if we are talking about, for example, the public policy making, I'm talking about real public policy making, not about technical policies, I do not know what kind of decentralized system exists. And I'm ready for anybody to explain to me whether there is any decentralized system regarding public policy issues which are listed by many participants which could be net neutrality, which could be taxation issues, which could be education and health-related Internet things. There is a huge list. What kind of decentralized system exists regarding that? Because it doesn't for me. Therefore, we are talking about two different sets. As I said in the morning, if we talk about the technical policy making separately and other public policy making separately, we wouldn't be making this kind of cross-dialogue which has happened a lot in enhanced-cooperation discussions and may keep on happening. So I suggest we discuss the technical policy side and other public policies as two separate groups, and then we would know what are different people saying within that particular area rather than cross-talking. And just a last point about the public policy issues also, I think also the groupings can be made in this manner. Instead of going by each public policy issue -- because we are not here to give responses to those public policy problems but just to understand the landscape so we can give suggestions about institutional requirements. So in that sense, I understand there are three groups, once which one are being dealt adequately right now somewhere by someone. There are another set of public policies which are partly being dealt by some people but requires an Internet-related aspect to be dealt which is not being dealt. And the third group which is completely -- has no existing kind of reference at all. This also is mentioned (audio interference) which acknowledges that there are public policy issues which are not being addressed. So if we go by the fact there are three categories, then we could make progress with the corresponding requirements of institutional systems for each. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. That's very interesting remarks. Probably we shall think about your remarks. Now, the floor is Mr. Piazza. >>ANDRES PIAZZA: Yes, thank you. This is Andres Piazza, member of the technical community group. Three remarks in the same direction or at least with some consensus with the previous speaker. First of all, there's apparently -- I guess, we can understand that the value of the current model of the Internet organizations or, let's say -- (audio feedback) -- the decentralized ICT, the value of that system is not in question. I think this is one of the points. The second point regarding the role of the IGF could be also considered one of the key roles in the future. And this third point that could be highlighted regarding the other issues, the other policy issues that are not currently being addressed in any different forum, what (indiscernible), and I guess we should agree also in this. We can probably agree. There's no need to duplicate different forums. But if there is the need to create a specific forum, this forum should have multistakeholder representation and not only as observers but also in the decision-making as equal footing. This is the third point that should be highlighted. Thank you very much. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Andres. Marilyn, please. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. I'm going to build on, I think, a directional comment that Parminder just made by suggesting that, in fact, we are really into the meat of an area that needs substantial discussion. And this was what I was -- when I referenced the point earlier that I'd like to think we could be flexible about what responses fit into the categories, I'd like to propose we consider separating question 4 from question 8 and 9 and consider adding the question that comes later, which is about issues that are important to developing countries and think about looking at the list of submissions in question 4 -- and I'm probably blanking on the number -- I think that's question 15 and looking at those in a sort of side-by-side approach to understand -- because, for instance, we have where one respondent listed ten issues, another may have listed 46. But there are similarities and congruencies across the different lists that have been submitted. And that would be, to me -- because identifying -- what we're here to do is to try to understand the issues that need to be addressed under the framework of enhanced cooperation. And to Parminder's point, we're not answering the issues but we are trying to sort of put them into categories. The second comment I would make -- And perhaps Parminder would be welcome -- would welcome a friendly amendment or we could talk about this more. I think actually it's four groups, but it's somewhere between three and four. There are the topics that are underway today but can't -- the focus on them can be enhanced or strengthened. So that recognizes that public policy issues continue to evolve. And even if an issue is being addressed, there may still need to be strengthening or enhancing of the -- particularly in participation from developing countries, et cetera. Then there is the category of their partly being dealt with. The category that I think Parminder suggested, they are new. There is no existing reference place but we recognize them. And then I think there's a fourth category that is more about trends which may lead us to understand that we can't predict or close out the fact that there will be more public policy issues that will emerge as technology and the number of users and the role of the Internet and its uses continue to evolve. And that last one would -- you know, I might think that the right place to discuss those is the IGF, but I think it's worth having a conversation to make sure that we as the working group are thoroughly understanding this. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn, very useful. Virat, please. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Chairman, this is on the two comments made with regards to dividing up this group in Question 4 and the other two questions. I suppose that the issue of mechanisms is derived from the issues that we have or hope to face in the future. Because that's -- the mechanism is sort of built to deal with those issues, some that we have on the table, some that we can foresee, and others we might not be able to foresee right now. And I'm very thankful to the list that has been provided by various inputs that have come in, especially the one that you have listed in the summary which is the Brazilian government which is a reasonably large and quite extensive setup. And I'm sure there's some missing in this, but it's a good reference to begin with. And I suppose looking at Question 4 and the issue at hand which are under II listed in the mechanism section of the summary, it gives us a good idea to take this discussion forward as to which of these issues can be tackled in platforms which require multistakeholder approach and which you believe will require a different set of mechanisms. And just to -- that's what it's going to boil down to finally. What are we going to recommend in terms of how the mechanisms come into place that deal with the issues at hand. And I think the (indiscernible) is that if you would look at these issues, I think that discussion, even though we're not here to respond as Parminder said to these issues, but I suppose that gives us a very good idea on whether these issues can be dealt with only in a multistakeholder process or if there's anything else that exists out there which in turn will influence the mechanisms and also where that should be located. And including whether the current ones are good enough or they need to be extended or improved or more work needs to be done. But a focus on Question 4 and the issue is -- actually could be the debate of the entire dialogue for the next two days because that's where the issues are. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for that. Brazil, please. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and listening to what has been said before, I fully agree with those that express the need that we should focus and identify different categories of issues we want to tackle. In that sense, my view is that Questions 4 and 8 are closely linked because as we identify what our public policy Internet-related issues that we should work on from the point of view of enhanced cooperation, we should look at what are the current arrangements for that end and I think in the -- in the spirit of what has been said before in the (indiscernible) group that we should have a clear mapping of what we have. So if we can link important issues to existing mechanism arrangements and differentiate between things that are -- have been said before that have already been dealt with by, you know, a decentralized system and that might not require any particular work in that regard. In my opinion, even in that case, we should look -- from the point of enhanced cooperation -- how the work being done in this decentralized system could be better understood and better incorporated by other stakeholder. I think that could be better indeed an angle through which we could see the work being done in this decentralized format but then we should focus on questions, on issues that although have been tackled also by different institutions might require, might be benefited from some added platform or some added layer of interaction. And then there are other issues that do not have a clear focus, a clear home and maybe that should be the one that we should focus with more emphasis in our work. I can relate to many notions that were expressed and not captured in the compilation document you have provided to us, Mr. Chair. For example, when the Democratic Republic of Congo states that too many mechanisms kill the mechanism. You should just have to define the mission of the existing mechanisms. That then we might have a very clear understanding of what are those existing mechanisms and what could be done in order to provide for better interaction with other stakeholders. And then it feels comments that emerging and often issues that have no other global home could justify a new mechanism. So again, we must, I think, by looking at the issues, what are the existing -- the current mechanisms institutions are dealing with this and how we can improve on that and for those that are not there, what should we recommend to satisfy. And on -- superceding all these and on top of all of these, I would just refer to a notion that is dear to my delegation, to others, that irrespective of issues being dealt with by different institutions or not, there is something that in our point of view is required, is a platform that would allow for a holistic and integrated view of all issues and from the point of view of enabling government to have a better understanding and better tools to address Internet-related public policy issues. This is something that, in my opinion, needs -- would, let's say, provide not from the point of view of impacting or interfering with what is being done, for example by the decentralized system, but to allow governments to be best equipped. This is something that emanates from the vision we have and the focus we tried to have in the enhanced cooperation exercise that we are focusing on some keywords in regard to the definition of enhanced cooperation. We do know that this is not -- there's no consensus, but we are focusing on the needs to enable governments to -- and I think this is maybe at the core of the enhanced cooperation from the perspective of my delegation -- to enable governments to work around Internet-related public policy issues. Of course we are talking of multistakeholder environment. This is not something to be done exclusively by government, but from our perspective enhanced cooperation have a very clear focus-oriented approach. And we would like to propose this. But again, I think maybe the preliminary thing and I agree with (saying name) and others that said that maybe this is the crucial -- at the heart of the exercise, is to have different categories of issues that should be dealt with separately. Otherwise, we see a lot of confusion and people refer to Internet Governance and enhanced cooperation, sometimes mixed issues that are by nature substantially different. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ambassador. I think it's very, very useful and it seems to me we are getting clear what we are here to do. It's a very good guidance for me as well. Sweden, please. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. While we're looking at the answers, some of the answers, it's -- it is easy to see that trying to list all relevant public policy issues is a very difficult task. We all have our favorites. Certainly for us, some of the most pressing and important ones are the protection of human rights online, the protection of rule of law online, and the protection of free and open Internet that enables trade and commerce to flow freely. However, we think by looking -- when looking at the answers, some of the answers, that they're -- I think it was the Indian response and maybe also the response of Finland that there are -- there has been work done in this area before, looking at the Internet -- the working group on Internet Governance, for example, and the report coming out from that working group. You can see that there was an attempt to identify a group of categories rather than listing -- categories of topics rather than listing an extensive amount of topics itself. And I think it's about the issues relating to the infrastructure and management of Internet resources. It's the issues relating to the use of Internet. It's the issues that are relevant to the Internet but have an impact that is much wider, and issues relating to development aspects of Internet Governance. Maybe we should try to, to some extent, also base our work on what has already been done. And then on the question of new mechanism, we totally agree also with what -- the response that what is highlighted earlier from Congo, for instance, that too many new mechanisms or too many mechanisms doesn't necessarily do the work. We think that we should focus on how we can better utilize the existing foras and existing frameworks for Internet Governance, how that can be strengthened, how enhanced cooperation can be strengthened in the existing foras. But let's continue our discussion on that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. Just to quickly go through some of the proposals that are on -- that are under this group. Firstly, with regard to the Question 4, I think it is perhaps good instruction to please recollect and give some recognition to the work that has been done by the working group which was hit up earlier on Working Group on Internet Governance. That certain public policy issues have already been dealt with, have been at least identified and the five different groups. In fact, given the Tunis Agenda we have made sort of a recognition that that working group has helped us to identify a number of public policy issues that are related to Internet Governance. So I think we are not starting from a clean slate. It's not a new kind of area that we are talking for the first time. So to that extent, I think it would be useful to see if we can -- how best we can actually recognize. They've all been categorized into five separate groups. Again, taking from there, whether we need to work forward in terms of mapping as we've been discussing, whether any of the issues which -- which mechanisms are currently being handling and if, in our perspective, in our opinion is it sufficient. If it is not sufficient, work further needs to be done. I think such an approach would help us move forward quickly. And if anyone -- any delegation has an additional item to be added, a policy issue to be added, I think we all could be open in terms of how best -- in which category it is to be reflected. That is the first intervention as far as Question 4 is concerned. With regard to Question 8, in the morning we made a brief announcement that, you know, we have a data (indiscernible) response. I think it's time to perhaps to read it out and later on we will circulate in the room in the afternoon as a document. With regard to this question, the basic change would be towards the last paragraph. I would just read the addition of it and then say why we are saying this. And the addition goes that -- the last paragraph -- that after giving certain references to the various paragraphs in the Tunis Agenda we have a concluding paragraph states, thus it is a clear mandate for defining the mechanism for effective global Internet Governance. We have said that in our earlier reply. And thereafter we said what mechanism we have in mind, we will come back to you in the group. I read quote, unquote, I read, the U.N. General Assembly could embark on a creation of a multi-lateral body for formulation of international Internet public policies. The proposed wording should include all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in the Tunis Agenda and the WGIG report which is also part and parcel of this discussion. To continue further, such a body should also develop globally-applicable principles and public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. Unquote. So this is the addition we have formally proposed, and the reason for this is very clearly as articulated in the Tunis Agenda itself in paragraph 29, 31 to 35 and paragraph 60. I don't need to go into the detail. I think we're quite familiar with these paragraphs. It is our understanding and (indiscernible) that while is a recognition for the governments to act on an equal footing with each other, as has also been pointed out by our distinguished ambassador from Brazil and a few colleagues, that there is not that forum for the government to see this from a holistic manner, in a manner that where there is a responsibility for the government. Again, we are saying it is not an exclusivity, certainly not. It is -- it is what we call working together kind of an approach. With regard to Question Number -- relating to IGF and enhanced cooperation, I think it's important to recognize the contribution that the IGF has been making in enhancing the dialogue among the various stakeholders. I don't think there are absolutely any doubts about also work -- also worked on improving their working methods through various processes, and I think its contribution will remain very important to the whole process. The multistakeholder dialogue that we intend to embark upon. However, there is a subtlety which I think has been brought up in the Tunis Agenda and which has been reflected through the U.N. General Assembly resolution which was adopted last year which was 67/195 and also for the ECOSOC resolution which was adopted in the General Assembly relating to a recommendation from the CSTD has been adopted by ECOSOC where they have made a distinction between the two processes, that these two are very distinct processes and they compliment each other. That means there is kind of a constant and there's going to be a working togetherness as we go along. And they're not going to be at anyone's cost. This is two independent processes, and I think if you could make this recognition and work in that direction, perhaps our contribution in this working group would be very, very productive and also it will further strengthen the IGF processes that we have set in motion. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. Just a quick reflection. Some of us have participated in the IGF in Bali which was an exceptional opportunity. >> (indiscernible) >>CHAIR MAJOR: We already have some oversight. ( Laughter ) So coming back to the IGF, it was an excellent opportunity and even though I know, because I was behind some of the resolutions which you mentioned, the two processes are independent. I would modify, with your permission, it's interdependent. And we are complimenting each other, I believe. The IGF and enhanced cooperation. And there are very clear signs of that, just referring to the bilateral meetings we had during the IGF which were informal but still very helpful referring to bringing up policy issues during the main sessions which were extremely useful and I believe the process itself -- both processes itself are extremely helpful for each other. Now, I can hear different voices, different opinions which are not very far from each other. I have heard that some said that there need to be -- need to have a mapping of the existing processes. Some said that we have enough fora to discuss issues, that we have to be more precise about responsibilities and the scope of these fora. Probably this is a good way to start our discussions. I fully agree that Question Number 4 is one of the crucial if not the crucial question when we discuss the heart of the matter, and all other issues are defending what we think, which are important for the group. So having said that, I would like to note someone would like to take the floor? On this you want to take the floor? There's another flag up? Yeah. >>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair. I just want to follow on the intervention from the distinguished delegate from India and emphasize that what I -- what I understood from the findings of the consultation of the questionnaire that was distributed is that there is very clearly a verity of understandings of what enhanced cooperation means. And from my perspective we should not be rushing to conclusions. We should also take this opportunity that we have during these three days to identify what works on the basis of existing mechanisms. Again, within the findings we saw, for instance, that since its creation the IGF has acted as a catalyst for enhanced cooperations. I think if we are able to identify areas of consensus, then it would certainly be a very productive path leading to useful and agreed possible recommendations for the future. I think again it's very important to work on the basis of the verity of understandings of what enhanced cooperation means and the acknowledgment that for a large majority of stakeholders it is not necessarily solely about intergovernmental cooperation. It should include all stakeholder categories, including civil society, business, and the technical and academic community. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Constance. I've been listening very carefully what has been said, and I had the impression that most of the contributions mentioned that enhanced cooperation should be made, taking into account the multistakeholder approach. There was, however, I think some differences about the implementation, whether it should be a multistakeholder approach or should it be a kind of multi-lateral, that's what I heard, with advisers from other stakeholder groups. So it's up to us to give recommendations in this area. It is my impression that the majority expressed views, those who took the floor, for the multistakeholder approach, and this is one of the critical issues of our discussions, whether we recommend either way. So any reflection on that? Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. My reflection is first of all to -- I intended to follow on the comment that's been raised a couple of times that I want to be sure that we address and that is recalling for all of us that we have previously, when this group was set up, discussed the need for a form of a mapping exercise. We've also seen a call for that from some of the comments. And I want to go back to, I think we need to look at the submissions, particularly in Question 4, and have some kind of general agreement on what's in the list of topics before we start finding homes for them, with all recognition of the comments that have been offered about different models that might offer new mechanisms. We also -- I believe I've heard colleagues call for looking at how we strengthen and enhance existing mechanisms. And so I'd like to suggest we focus a bit more on mapping first and then coming back to the question of what are the range of approaches that could be looked at for strengthening and improving existing mechanisms or for looking at what new mechanisms, if any, are then to be discussed within this group. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. I have a question to you. When you are mentioning mapping exercise do you have something in mind which we should be doing right here, right now, or should it be left to the Secretariat, or what is your complete suggestion? >>MARILYN CADE: Well, particularly on Question 4, and then the other question I referenced, which I think is Question 15 about public policy issues which are of most interest to developing countries, I think, in fact, that's actually a quick process that can be done by looking at the submission of topics that have been contributed by the various submitters. There -- there's congruency for some of them. Some of them are more granular than others but do have a certain amount of, I think, the ability -- for instance, I would say that security and trust in the online world could include topics like child online protection or capacity building in dealing -- you know, I think it would be possible to begin to aggregate topics into categories. >>CHAIR MAJOR: An additional question, how do you see it to be done? Shall we create some kind of small working group within the working group itself and which would come back to us, though I can't see it being done during the plenary. Would it be useful to have an offline group and then come back to the plenary with the results? >>MARILYN CADE: Well, it might be interesting to understand if there's support in the room and colleagues who would like to work in that direction. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I'll let you think about the proposal, Marilyn. In the meantime, Jimson, you wanted to take the floor. >> JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you, distinguished chair, your excellencies, colleagues, ladies and gentleman. My name is Jimson Olufuye. The chair of Africa ICT Alliance. It's a private sector led ICT group for Africa. So I'm really very pleased to be one of the five business entities in this working group. Since this is the first time I'm speaking today, I want to really appreciate the Chair, the Secretariat, for the great job they've done. And I have no doubt we're going to continue in the exact same momentum. Well, the issues that pertain to Internet policy, with regard to developing country is also very closely related to what is of concern to developed countries. So I think just to align my thought with the view as expressed by Marilyn that it would be a good idea to outline all the subject matters or the areas of concerns and then map it really and then see where they are already functioning, where they are already actively being treated. I'm very much familiar with the core ideas which EU, African Union, and (indiscernible), that is my area. These are issues they are already discussing vigorously at that level. So if we're able to outline all those points, you can see where we have gaps. So if we have gaps, then surely let us take them on. We also know there will be many issues, many issues. It would be a good idea to see where (indiscernible) will fit in because the enhanced cooperation topic on the Internet is very dynamic and quite fluid. But as my colleague has already underscored, whatever will be done going forward has to be truly multistakeholder model. It's a great privilege that the private sector which I represent is also -- is also being considered seriously, and I think this as our issue shall continue in the interest of our citizens -- global citizens and citizens in the developing nation in particular. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Thank you, Jimson. I can identify Parminder and then Brazil. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. I first raised the flag to follow up on the Chair's observation about there being a kind of talk about whether we should follow a multistakeholder approach or a multilateral approach with stakeholder participation and consultations. This actually goes to the topic, cluster 3, which is the role of stakeholders. But I think the role of stakeholders is very much tied with both kind of issues and the mechanisms. And in that sense, it fits here. And that's pretty fine. However, I still think in case we need to go by categories -- and if that works, the mapping is fine with me because it is the nature of issues, not the specific issue, let's not get bogged down whether access is more important or network neutrality or trade issues or global taxation, that list is endless. And if we start doing that, I mean, that wouldn't be the most productive use of our time. We are talking about kinds of issues which require different kind of institutional responses which includes very prominently different roles of stakeholders. And that is a thing we're trying to kind of sort out today. And in that sense, again, when I hear multistakholder approach, I'm very comfortable when technical policy is being made. Corporate sectors who have a lot of expertise would come in perhaps on an equal basis and give their expertise because they are make standards. This is completely different from substantive public policy issues like when I read the Brazilian list and the issues are there and many other issues on the list: Cultural diversity, harmonization of national policies, trade and e-commerce, consumer rights, data protection and privacy rights. They are typical public policy issues. And if we are talking about actual public policy issues, I think we are touching the Holy Grail of democracy whether when corporate can be equal in decision-making along with a government. I don't know if that's the precise question you're talking about or even if a civil society actor can actually have a veto or actual role in decision-making. These are different sets of issues. The technical policy making is one set, oversight is a small other set, and other public policy issues which are substantive public policies and which Tunis Agenda says is the responsibility of governments is a different set of issues. And then I get confused when people say, Okay, we are agreeing about the multistakeholder approach. Then I'm fine when it is the technical side. Are we talking about the public policy issues side? Are we talking about global taxation on Internet issues? And what does that mean when we say every stakeholder has an equal right to be a part of the decision-making process? I think unless we separate things in categories, depending on different kind of mechanisms and different stakeholder roles, we would still be talking across areas and which would not be very conducive to our progress. And in that sense, if mapping is the way to go, mapping is fine. But mapping by the needs of institutional areas rather than whether developing countries need it or whether it is access or whether it is net neutrality. But mapping it according to the kind of issues which need different institutional responses and also perhaps different roles of stakeholders, which is an open question. But the categories, I understand, would be this. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. Brazil, please. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In my opinion, the way we deal with this set of questions will give the sense of the success or not of this group. I see a lot of confusion even among people who are actors, who operate in the Internet, a lot of confusion on those issues. And I -- in my opinion, it's not have one single formulation that encompasses all situations. There's no one solution, one side, that fits all for all the issues on the table. And this has been spelled out by Marilyn Cade, Parminder and others. So unless we have very clear differentiation between different contexts, any statement, for example, that some parties prefer the multistakeholder approach and opposition -- this would be artificial because we would be talking about different things. Even from the part of parties that favor a more multilateral approach, you get to some issues, for example, to my understanding, they do not challenge, for example,the kind of work that is being done with regard to engineering of the Internet. So there is no point, for example, for the ISTARs to be concerned about this when -- it's not addressing what they're doing. So I think we must differentiate. I think the idea of categories of issues is important. And the mapping exercise is important. I think it is, indeed, maybe a prerequisite for us to work, to have a clear understanding of categories and the mapping associated to it. You have asked whether we should do it now or -- it is a rather complicated question because on one hand, I think it is, indeed, the prerequisite for an efficient work. But if we start doing it now, it will not be efficient for us to do it. So I'll leave it in your hands, Mr. Chair and colleagues, about how we can maybe move forward in that but without affecting negatively our work and the time we have aside for us. Again, I think one very concrete contribution coming from this group would be to give clarity on this which is -- as we read pieces of paper statements, it is confusing. And sometimes we clearly see that people are talking about different things. We see at the OECD, those have building blocks that are not necessarily in opposition if we deal differently with different kinds of situations. This is not contradictory if we are supporting fully multistakeholder approach, even without any kind of governmental participation. On the other hand, we discuss issues we want some more -- it is required some more, let's say, governmental policy-making authorities. So the mapping exercise is completely relevant. What I would like to ask -- this is the kind of approach to take -- to have an open mind in regard to what we have on the table. We would not -- we do not want to be impeded to proceed in some direction by our own perspective. But we want to take fully into account other stakeholders' perspectives because, for example, the point of view from government for some particular set of issues is very important. And maybe when we focus on this, then we have a discourse that entails some concern. But we also want to acknowledge that for other parties, other aspects are important. So I think as we look to the whole picture, it is important to make clear that we are -- we have to differentiate and we have to work around this idea of categories of mapping. And, again, I do not have an understanding how it would be more efficient for us to work around this. But I think it's a prerequisite for us for our work. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ambassador. So I can hear a relatively clear support for the mapping as a prerequisite for work. And at the same time, I'm happy that you share my concerns about the proceeding of our work. So that's why I suggested that eventually we can have a task for -- whatever you may call it, a subgroup, which could come up with the beginning of this exercise to give us some food for thought. And I wonder if apart from the persons who suggested to have the -- this exercise, who would be interested to work during lunchtime, during coffee breaks, during the evenings but outside the meeting and come back, say, in some point of time, to provide us with further inputs? First Marilyn and then (saying name). >>MARILYN CADE: Chair, let me ask a question. It seems to me that a first starting point would be a simple Excel spreadsheet which has on the left-hand side the name of the submitter and across the top -- sorry, I'm trying to organize this in my mind as I'm looking at it. So the name of the submitter and then the issues that they submitted under question 4, I would say question 15 as well, but question 4. That sounds to me like it is a cut and paste -- the first step is a cut and paste so that then we can start looking at it. Is that -- and trying to boil the longer list into more generalized categories. And then taking into account -- I think the next step, taking into account the idea then of how you look at the discussion in the room coming from: So do we think this particular topic is falling into one of the four or three groupings that Parminder and I had been discussing? But the first step sounds to me like, I would hope, a secretariat function of cut and paste to try and to get the submissions into a document. Is your suggestion that we need to find participants to do that first? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Marilyn, I have been told by the secretariat that the path of the exercise has already been done. It's on the Web site, if I'm not mistaken. But can I ask you to make some clarification to that? >> On the Web site, we have two kinds of PDF documents. One set of PDF documents are the individual submissions. Another set of PDF documents are compilation by question. So you can download all the responses to question 4, for instance, 15 or 2 or 5, whatever. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Is it an answer to your question or to the proposal or you want to go beyond? >>MARILYN CADE: Chair, I'm very familiar with it. I'm carrying it around with me. I sleep with it under my pillow. >> CHAIR MAJOR: No doubt about it. [ Laughter ] >> MARILYN CADE: I was thinking about transcribing it on to the pillow case. But it's going to be difficult to work with it in this particular form unless people have a paper copy in front of them. If you haven't seen it, you know basically we would be flipping back page by page. So that was my question about -- but is the secretariat's suggestion that we volunteer task force members could spend our lunchtime filling in Excel spreadsheet? Which is possible, of course. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Just a slight correction, it is not the secretariat, it is mine. [ Laughter ] So let me be clear about it. I made the suggestion, and I'm happy that you accepted it. And I would like to see more and more volunteers to sacrifice their lunchtime, which is very much approaching. Before we break, I think India has asked for the floor. And then I propose to break for lunch and ask you as well to find a way to get together and to start this exercise which has been proposed. Basically, I think that we are talking about the mapping exercise, talking about some kind of spreadsheet approach, if I'm not mistaken, which will take the issues and the proposals. Marilyn, can you be clearer on that? What is your proposal exactly? >>MARILYN CADE: Well, I don't think it's just my issue. I think if there's interest in doing a mapping exercise, we should hear from others who are interested in it. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. Brazil? >>BRAZIL: I'm sorry, but it's more a point of clarification because when we are proposing these mapping exercises, we are looking to something that is not exactly to map what the different responses were and to identify the issues but to link this, the issues to the current arrangement and mechanism. So this is something that in our view should maybe be done -- I could not volunteer. I do not have expertise to link some issue to some current arrangement. But I think this is something that would assist us in moving forward. This was the understanding I had of the mapping, is that it is required for us to move forward. And I think this is something that will not emerge only from compilation which has already been done by the secretariat, by the way. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I understand your concerns, and I share them. I'm sure that not all of us have the expertise here to be part of this group. I think it can be only regarded as a start for this exercise. And probably it will be helpful maybe for all meetings right now. I think it will be useful for the future meetings, if I'm not mistaken. India, you wanted to take the floor? >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I'm glad this clarification has already been given. I think mapping exercises not with the proposers of those proposals but rather with the issues, public policy issues versus the mechanisms, existing. So that would lead us to the next questions. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. So it seems to me that we are on -- yes, Virat, I suggest you are the last and we break for lunch. >> VIRAT BHATIA: We have two sort of options here. One is the WGIG document that was mentioned, which has under Section III "identifying public policy issues that are relevant to Internet governance and addressing the advocacy of existing governance arrangements mentioning A, B, C, D," four issues. And then we have the Brazilian government's list which is about five issues mentioned, but they are not necessarily corresponding to each other. So I suppose if the mapping exercise has to happen, then we'll have to mention those under the WGIG documents classified, those 48 or 45 issues and then start linking them to mechanisms as well as the roles of the various stakeholders. I think that would be two exercises. And if it's -- I think that will lead us to deciding what the mechanisms should be. And whether an existing mechanism has a home or we need to find a new home. I think these two documents will have to be merged for us to get -- because the submissions to question 4 has five different inputs ranging from 13 to 49, issues identified by various stakeholders. The set we are going with in terms of WGIG is four. So we can possibly pick the biggest set -- let's say the Brazilian set, for example -- and try to match it there and work from there. We are happy to provide and Excel sheet without promising no mistakes. [ Laughter ] And then the team can change it around in case some have to shift and link it to a mechanism, if that is helpful. I'm just offering that help. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, thank you for the support of this proposal. I think the secretariat can give you further support in that. So probably if you request them to be part of the exercise, they will be happy to help you. As for the time frame for the exercise, I'm not really sure that we can come back after lunch, but I hope we can, and we can continue all discussions still on group 2, taking into account your input or your results. And I think that would be quite helpful. Having said that, I think we can break now. I want to see you back by 3:00. And I encourage you to spend your lunchtime the most efficient way you think. [ Lunch break ] [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Can I ask you to take your seats, please. Thank you. Welcome back. I hope you had a very good lunch, good discussions. I want to start with an announcement. India had made an update to the contributions. And you have the update in paper form on the table, I think, at the entrance of the room. So feel free to pick up your copy. It is my understanding that the voluntary task group undertaking a kind of mapping exercise has made significant progress. We are talking about the grouping of -- we have the Questions Number 4, 8 and 9. It is my understanding that the mapping exercise has been started and taken into account the contributions to reply to Question Number 4. So we are going to discuss this afternoon the questions in Group 4. I would like to ask any representative of this voluntary task group if they feel like reporting on the results. We are very keen to know where we are. Yes, Marilyn, please. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. I'll open my comments by saying that the voluntary task group is going to be seeking further collaboration and participation, so if you didn't -- if you didn't spend your lunch hour with us, don't think you're off the hook. But let me give you a quick update. What we did -- and two members of the voluntary group are still trying to finalize a working document. Virat Bhatia has also engaged some of his team to also help. What we're doing is taking -- sort of envision Column 1 as being a consolidated list of all of the bulleted items that were submitted on Question 4 from any submitter, starting with the Brazilian list and then consolidating all of the bullets. So if a submitter wrote a paragraph we've not been able to figure out, those will not have been reworded. But the first column will be all of the bullets. There will be a lot of duplication or phrases which may mean roughly the same thing but they're worded differently. The second column we're proposing -- this will, of course, be up to the participants to decide, but we're proposing then to try to come to a grouping that is more consolidated. So envision Column 1 as possibly having well over a hundred bullets in it with duplication in it. Maybe 80 but it will be a long list of bullets. And then the second column would be consolidated headings where we would try to come up with categories that everybody felt comfortable with that that long list of bullets could be consolidated into. The third column we are proposing drawing from the submissions would be the list of activities. We are using a very general heading, the list of activities that are underway. So if someone submitted an example that the ITU is doing work on child online protection or the ITU submitted that, that would be go in there. MOG (phonetic) was mentioned by another group, so that would go in that. And then we'll have two blank columns. The fourth column would probably, in order to make this a useful tool, need to be sort of a general assessment of satisfaction with progress on enhanced cooperation. And I'm really using that as a very general term, taking Parminder's suggestion of three categories, and mine of four. And then there is a column that just says "comments." So by tomorrow morning, we would expect to have -- and actually have it to send to everyone by later today this Excel spreadsheet. And then we would want to try to figure out what the consolidated headings are for Column 2. So this would be a mapping exercise for one question but a question that, I think, everyone has agreed is a very significant question and where there was a significant amount of input. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. And thank you for all who have participated in this work and who are going to participate. And I really encourage all of you to participate and to contribute. I think the result of this exercise may be a very valuable document. I think as well that due to the complexity of the issue, probably many of us would think that we have to take the document back home and consult with relevant partners. So having said that, I'm looking forward to have this document eventually by tomorrow. And I'm sure the secretariat will give all the help which is needed to finalize in a way that we can use it for our future discussions. So we are back to Group Number 2, Questions 4, 8 and 9. And before lunch break, we discussed many issues. I'm turning to you if you have any other comments or observation on these questions. My intention, that eventually we will go through in a relatively quick way all the groups and all the questions and we shall revisit them naturally in more depth. And probably we will take two groups of questions in the coming days with a view of eventually arriving to some kind of draft recommendation. So any comment on Question Numbers 4, 8 and 9? Well, I can see no one asking for the floor. Yes, Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Sorry, Chair. I actually think for myself I got very diverted on to Question 4, and I don't feel like we have talked through 8 and 9. And I would ask other colleagues. But I think there's a merit to talking about 8 and 9 as a pair right now. Or if people don't feel prepared to talk about it, then I would like to park it and come back to it because they are two questions that I otherwise sort of feel like we're stranding. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I fully agree with you. That's why I asked the group to comment on that. I can see the United States asking for the floor. Please. >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Chairman. Perhaps not to comment on that particular point but to take your earlier point, I guess, when you were just asking generally for comments related to various questions. So in the arena of Question 4, I would just make a note that for my administration, from the United States, we see no hard distinction between public policy issues and technical issues in terms of broadly governance. Both, whether we are in a technical arena or in a public policy arena, for us we think that it's important to take in the views of all stakeholders, not just simply government, not just simply the private sector. And that's the way we can best progress. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, U.S., for this comment. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: If as Marilyn says that 8 and 9 has to be treated together and 8 is about mechanisms and 9 about the role of IGF and also taking from the United States' intervention that if -- I mean, I have been trying to insist since morning that categories of technical and public policy be separated because the nature of stakeholder roles are different. And, now, if -- now, we have to then connect to the point where they are different or non-different. I think that point, even between the mechanisms and the IGF, is the decision-making procedures which the Chair has very appropriately put as a subheading in the summary itself. I think the core issue is this. People do agree that, yes, whether it is technical or public policy, everybody's views have to be taken. They could be heavily layered and intensive processes of view taking and reporting back why the views were considered and not, et cetera. And all of this are fine. And I think the real point is the decision-making procedure regarding different kinds of issues. And that's where the difference lies. In technical policies, the decision-making could still be shared in some manners. But there is some kind of public policy issues, e-commerce and consumer rights and taxation, a whole host of them here. In international jurisdictions, we are also very clear that the decision-making is done in a particular manner. So I think if we discuss the decision-making procedures part of your summary, then we would be going to the meat of this particular question. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I just want to have a quick clarification from Marilyn. I think she made a point about Question 4 being closely looked at with Question 10. Is that assumption correct? >>MARILYN CADE: Sorry. I think it's Question 15. It is the one that identifies public policy issues of most importance to the developing countries. 15, isn't it? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Any other comment? Yes, Virat. >> VIRAT BHATIA: I think the point that's been brought up by Parminder is an important one. And I think there are two views emerging which we need to sort of take cognizance of and then work away to try to close the gap as much as possible, which is are there areas where the decision-making has to be such that the other stakeholders have a lesser or a different role? And I think we have not reached that conclusion based on the submissions yet. So I think that should be open to an evolving dialogue during this discussion. And I don't want to go into the specifics that have been mentioned, but I think business believes that -- and I speak for my colleagues. I think we -- we believe that stakeholders need to be on that table on an equal footing to make those decisions as much as they have to be on an equal footing in the policy dialogue that occurs in places such as the IGF. Part of this is because if not all, vast majority of the infrastructure that currently provides access to nearly 7 billion mobile subscriptions in the world, citizens who are online, which is 40% of the world and 40% of the households across the world, that infrastructure is provided by the private sector. So even if access was an issue -- and we can go on to any number of issues there -- I think any policy that will impact the investment possibilities across the world and given the fact that there is free flow of investment now across the world, just citing one of the many, would require stakeholders to be in this decision-making process at an equal footing and more importantly have a mechanism which allows for everybody to be on an equal footing, not just to be consulted but, in fact, the views should be considered and discussed. And if there is a result that we reach after the discussion, it could well be that one of the stakeholders was wrong and the other stakeholder was right. That decision can only be made if the mechanism and the platform provides for all the stakeholders to be on an equal footing. If the status of the stakeholders is decided before the discussion occurs, then the decision-making will shift to a certain different stakeholder. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for these remarks. Definitely no one really thinks right now that we are at the state of conclusions. We are just starting our discussions. And we are here to express the different approaches we have and we try to find some common understanding, which approach is advantageous to one issue and which approach is advantageous to another one. So probably at the end of the day, we may have a better understanding. I don't think we are going to arrive to some conclusion -- well, at least not today. I hope we are going to arrive to some conclusion on Friday evening. If not, I think we will have other meetings. We know the issues are complex. We know that. And the issues are new. Even though the decision which was taken during the WSIS dates about almost nine years now. But still the evolution of the Internet itself and all the issues which we are facing every day are new. So I think we are in a learning curve, and we have to take this also into account. So any other comments on Question 4, 8 and 9? There was a request or a call from Marilyn that eventually we'd like to discuss 8 and 9 which haven't been touched upon. Yes, India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to reflect on some of the comments which have been made just now by colleagues in the room. I think -- I think to be drawn into the initial comments you made at the beginning of this meeting, I think they're very critical and important. The mandate of the group here is very well-specified through the General Assembly resolution. I think we need to be extremely mindful, which you have reminded us quite very early in the discussion, that the challenge that we face is -- there are obviously evolving subjects, evolving issues. And having said that, I think it would be important to bear in mind that we are not here to rewrite the Tunis Agenda. We are not here to redefine the roles with respect to stakeholders. I think if you go down that path, we may have difficulties in arriving at conclusions or the way decisions are to be made. I think these are larger issues that we should leave for some other mandated body to look at it. At this point in time, the route we embarked upon which is to define those issues which we decide as public policy issues and technical issues and then going down the path of looking at what mechanisms that are existing and if we need to further strengthen them. I think perhaps that could be the right way to do, in our opinion. So I think it's important that we continuously be reminding ourselves of the importance of this particular dimension of our work. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for this remark. And you maybe show that I will do my best to stick to the mandate we have. However, we should also take into consideration that we are part of a process and this process is the WSIS +10 process. We should provide some input to the final evaluation of the WSIS +10. And we cannot exclude some elements which may be beneficial for the revision of this process, for the review of the process. Before I give the floor to Avri, Carlos asked for the floor. Carlos. >>CARLOS AFONSO: Yes. I would just like to compliment what you just said, Peter. I think that the document from LACNIC, the response from the questionnaire, it says an interesting thing that the Tunis Agenda, the results of Tunis, we don't have to take as a Bible in every paragraph, sentence, or word because there is a dynamic. There is a process in which the Internet is evolving. The technologies are evolving. The relationships between states and other stakeholders are evolving as well. And this is the reason why we are here, exactly too precise or to attempt to focus more on these issues of cooperation amongst stakeholders. So let's not be fixed on the idea of "in their respective roles," and let's be much more open about it. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Carlos. Avri, remote participant, and then I see Phil and I see Sweden as well. >>AVRI DORIA: Good day to you all. Sorry I couldn't be here. Saying good day from lovely Vancouver where the IETF meeting is being held this week. I wanted to come in behind what Carlos has said and comment on the role of stakeholders and the notion that that is something that is somewhat sacrosanct and cannot be modified. I rather say that it is something that must be modified. It was a government proscription for the roles of all stakeholders, the roles and responsibilities. It does not reflect accurately all the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders in the Internet governance environment. And unless we can adjust that to reflect reality, to reflect real capabilities, we are condemning ourselves to sort of wander around in circles where some people assert that roles and responsibilities that others have and must take cannot be the case. So I really do beg us to take the redefinition of those in a multistakeholder model as opposed to trying to constrain the discussions in such a way that only one stakeholder defines the roles and responsibilities of another. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. Very interesting remarks. And we are aware of the enormous task ahead of us. And we should also understand the delicacy of the issues. So probably we have to be very cautious in using words such as "must." We shall, of course, consider things. But I would caution you to follow a kind of process which is very cautious. Phil and then Sweden. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. And good afternoon. I listen with interest to this discussion and my mind goes back to the very interesting and varied interpretations that have been put into the responses that we have received as part of the process. And I think the points that have been made by yourself and others are ones that we should take into account. WSIS was nine years ago, and the world has moved on since then. To some it has perhaps not moved as much and as fast or, indeed, covered a number of the points that would have been liked. But the journey, as many refer to enhanced cooperation within the responses, has started. And I think it's important certainly bearing in mind the point made by Virat and by others that it is -- it is a start. And stakeholders, as part of the debate, now need to be included as a general inclusion in discussions and decisions going forward. I don't think we should try and lose sight of that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. First of all, I agree what was said by India. We are not here to rewrite the Tunis Agenda. That's not within our mandate obviously. However, what I think we all have to do, given that the Tunis Agenda is, say, a high-level document -- high-level principles are enclosed in the Tunis Agenda -- is that we have to interpret the Tunis Agenda. And that's, I think, something that we all do here. So there is a clear distinction there, I think. Just also to comment on the issue that was discussed before about separating technical issues from public policy issues, I think we are also of the view that we do not see a clear benefit of making such a distinction given that we think that it's very important to deal with public policy issues also in a multistakeholder environment. So we are not sure that that would add any benefit to the work here to do such a clear distinction, separation. If I also may very briefly comment on Question 8 and 9, since you asked for that, although we can come back with more details later. But for us, enhanced cooperation is a process. And I think that's -- that's very important to keep in mind. And, therefore, it's not something that is implemented through one mechanism or in one specific fora but a process that is taking place in many different foras. And we definitely see IGF as one of those foras where enhanced cooperation is taking place, not the only one, though, but one of them. So that's how we -- that's our take on Question 8 and 9, I think. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Again, the remote participant, Joy Liddicoat. Joy, you have the floor. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Peter. I wanted to just make a couple of comments with respect to comments made so far. This is in relation to Question 8 and coming from mechanisms. (Background noise). (indiscernible). I think that's critical to underscore. I think there has been a (indiscernible) of mechanisms on which enhanced cooperation has been quite constant. Tunis Agenda was agreed and that includes both new and existing mechanisms. For example, there are some mechanisms considering (indiscernible) issues including the United Nations (indiscernible) which have not previously been considered before in some respects which cover an actual cooperation's mechanism of stakeholders. And that I think with regard to whatever form the mechanism takes, it's going to be more successful in enhanced cooperation that people participating can do so with confidence. And I think that, therefore, (indiscernible) to which people have a stake with an existing governmental system, there are many opportunities for governments who participate, some obviously more than others. And the challenge, I think, is to give developing countries more voice but also to just civil society and other stakeholders with some existing mechanisms. (indiscernible). I would agree that this decision of public policy and technical issues (indiscernible) because if we are going to define substance from the former works we discussed, then I think we are at risk for (indiscernible) public policy. And I would remind (indiscernible) members to think about (indiscernible) enhanced cooperation. Cooperation is a positive tool. It's a tool that is designed to catch (background noise) (indiscernible) that some participants are working on over the months. But it would be an useful one for us to go back to and consider this afternoon. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. You sounded a bit distant from us. She's talking from New Zealand. We are -- I think all of us are aware of the importance of the process we are in. And enhanced cooperation means something very positive to all of us, I believe, well to me at least. And I would like to encourage you to take this positive approach as well. So having said that, anyone on Question 4, 8, 9? Especially 8 and 9. Yes, an observer. >>MATTHEW SHEARS: Thank you, Chair. Matthew Shears with CDT. I think just a couple comments on what's been said so far. There is an incredibly diverse -- great diversity of views on enhanced cooperation, and that is reflected very well in the summary. But I would like to take a couple of particular points, especially when it comes to mechanisms. People have mentioned how the world has changed, how the Internet has changed since the WSIS. And I'd like to say that when we contemplate moving forward in this particular working group and we talk about multilateral models that have other stakeholders in some consultative role, this doesn't seem to me to be a step forward in any interpretation of the word "cooperation." I think to come back to the things that were said earlier on today, it is important that we be open to the views of all of the parties. It is important that we reflect on how the Internet space has evolved and how there has been cooperation and enhanced cooperation and that we take that view forward. And I would like to say that for all those who have suggested that we need to look at the issues, this is exactly the way to go forward. Let's look at those issues. Let's understand how they are being addressed. Let's then understand in what ways they are being addressed and how those ways can be improved upon, and let's take that as the basis of our discussions. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Well, it seems to me that for the time being, there are no more contributions concerning the Group 2; that is 4, 8 and 9. We have the promise of the voluntary task group to come up with a document tomorrow morning so probably we shall discuss this issue tomorrow as well. Now, I suggest that eventually we move to the next group. This is Group 3. I will let you look into the questions pertaining to Group 3. Probably five minutes would be enough to refresh our memories and then we shall start the discussions after the coffee break which I think will be around 20 past 4:00. So please have a look at the questions under Group 3. [ Reviewing document. ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, it seems to me that five minutes goes really fast and you seem to be very much absorbed in your exercise, which I'm very happy about, but I believe we have to get to the point now. So it's Group 3, and I would like to hear some comments from you. So far, if I'm not mistaken, we are talking about Questions 5, 6, 7, 17 -- 14, and 17, which is quite substantial. And they're all of the stakeholders we have already touched upon, but our (indiscernible) this is the nature of the thing, but we come back to the same issues from a different angle. But right now we have to concentrate on this particular issue, which is the role of the stakeholders. So who would like to contribute, and I would like to have -- of course, with all my respect to you, Brazil, I'm all ears for the comments. I will give you the floor shortly, but let me ask those ones who seem to have some kind of jet lag or some kind of fatigue because of the -- we're at the end of the year and we have many meetings, I understand. But I would like to encourage you, those of you who haven't done it yet, to contribute to the meeting, to collect more views and to make this meeting really fruitful. Brazil, please. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I also joined a group of people that are jet-lagged. But anyway, maybe I can just make a few comments. First of all, in the light of the discussions we had before, if we agreed that we want to examine the issue of enhanced cooperation through the angle of differentiation among issues, then Question Number 5 should also take this into account when we ask, "What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced cooperation," so various aspects relates to different kinds of circumstance that should be dealt with differently. So, in a way it is linked to the discussion we had before, and in a way to have meaningful discussion with this we would need the work that is being -- that they can -- I understand by Marilyn Cade and others, that can provide us with some more tools for that regard. However, I would also -- from the point of view of governments, I would recall that in another section in the context of the Council Working Group, the U.K. has come up with a proposal that is very interesting from the point of the view of the role of governments in Internet Governance as a whole that provides very useful elements for examining this issue from the perspective of governments. And the way it indicates areas in which governments can -- and certainly from the perspective of public policy -- can provide very specific contribution for the environment, the legal environment, legal framework, regulatory framework, and also as a catalyst for the multistakeholder ambiance as a whole. So I think even if it is not in the context of how it will work, it will be useful to relate to this document. Question Number 6, of course, is -- in our view is also very clearly -- 6 and 7 to the discussion also we had before in the sense that the -- also if we identify -- oh, I'm sorry. Yes, because then we are maybe focusing on mechanisms, and I think this is something that might be useful to use in conjunction with Question Number 8. All of these questions relate to each other. It's not easy to -- it's not so clear how to tackle them separately. In regard to Question Number 7, I would also again refer you to this U.K. paper, refer that enhanced cooperation, from the point of view of governments, from the point of view of the enabling environment, it certainly will also be a tool for participation of multistakeholders and in itself with assist them also to carry out their roles and responsibilities. One comment in regard to Question Number 14 is that I think this is, of course, a very useful issue to be examined and I understand for a few participants a very important issue and for my own delegation a very important issue, the local language contents. However, in this case, I -- my feelings are that maybe it should not be the main focus of our work. I think we should -- I think this is one of the issues that should be dealt with in the context of enhanced cooperation. That's -- the focus of our work should be the structure and the kind of framework we want, more than the issues themselves. So my feeling is that although very important aspects, that should not maybe be the focus of our work here. And finally with regards to 17, yeah, again I would just refer to the reply we gave on the policy development institutional multistakeholder framework, and I want to make reference to the model we had in Brazil in the steering committee which is one of the possibilities in which that would be translated to a concrete achievement. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. Sweden, please. >>SWEDEN: Thank you. Just a couple of comments. I think one thing that is important to keep in mind when we are discussing about the roles of different stakeholders is that we are dealing with a very rapidly changing environment. So rules of stakeholders might also change over time. Also, we think that it's quite important to not have too much of a top-down approach on this. Roles of stakeholders will be defined by stakeholders to a large extent. And not by -- by people outside of, let's say, the Internet Governance Eco-System. Just to also comment briefly on how we see the role of the government, we definitely think that upholding the rule of law online in the same manner as we do offline is one of the main roles of the government as well as them upholding human rights online in the same manner that we uphold human rights offline, as well as facilitating multistakeholder dialogue on these issues. I think a lot of that has also been captured in the U.K. proposal that was mentioned by Brazil, and we very much appreciate that contribution and looking forward to sort of a dialogue on that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. So anyone -- yes, Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. I would just like to build on a reference that Brazil made about the submission of the U.K. into the international public policy working group because I think it is an excellent resource. It is only available to governments or to parties that are on government delegations, so it might be possible maybe to contact the U.K. and ask them if they would provide an information document which could be shared. I will note -- I'm sorry, I don't know -- the pages aren't numbered on the submission, but the U.K., the summary for the U.K. submission on Question 5 has a very high level reference that identifies some of those topics, and I would call that to everyone's attention because I think it is a useful discussion about the -- first of all, it recognizes the mutual recognition of the respective roles, but it does go on to identify some of the activities that were mentioned in the -- in the U.K. submission to the ITU working group. I wanted to make a couple of comments about, I wonder if perhaps on Question 14 -- and I think there may be a couple of other questions like that which are specific to particular areas that need to be -- need to evolve very rapidly in order to ensure that all citizens of the world can use the Internet and the World Wide Web. Maybe we might take those questions and put them in a category to come back to and -- because it may be that we will not, in this working group, be able to be very specific but we might be able to summarize that the interest of those who responded to the questionnaire showed strong support for continued work being done on these particular issues. And this one is the development of local language content. I wouldn't want to lose the submissions, but I -- I agree with Brazil that it may be too granular an area for us to spend a lot of time on. And we didn't ask questions about every other issue. And then finally, I think Question 7, I guess I'm really quite surprised that there's not a lot of flags up to talk about Question 7. So I will say that I think it is a question that we need to talk about a lot more. And if we don't talk about it now, then maybe we could talk about it tomorrow whenever we get the Question 4 documents and come back and talk about this question in more detail. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. Before I give the floor to Parminder, I turn to the U.K. and ask, for she has already the answer, and my question is, there was reference to the ITU working group public policy issues and the contributions came from the U.K. Do you think there's a possibility of making this available to the group here? Thank you. >>UNITED KINGDOM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank everyone here for such positive feedback on that paper which was put together in a multistakeholder group in the U.K. I'm sure it would be perfectly fine for us to share it with the group here. I'm just double-checking with London, but I can't foresee any problem. I'll get a copy sent to the Secretariat so they can make sure that everybody has access to it. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Sorry, Mr. Chair. Not -- just not to lose not only that, I made the reference also because Mr. Ed Vaizey made a presentation on this at the IGF meeting so that might also be a source, the speech he delivered captured the main points. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. So probably if Mr. Vaizey's speech is available, it would be also useful -- his speech during the IGF, it would be useful. But I think there's a transcript, so -- which is available on the web, on the IGF website, which can be consulted as well. And it's open. Okay. So having said that, Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. One of my points was undisputed by Ambassador (saying name). I do not have access to the U.K. document submitted to the ITU, but I remember sitting through the first session in the IGF and the minister detailed four levels of governmental role as they saw in Internet Governance and I nearly agreed with the whole framework there. And having heard that framework and agreeing to that, I'm a little unclear about certain conclusions of the discussion and I think this particular discussion is important also to figure out what mechanisms are necessary. Because after my early intervention which said that the main point here is the participation and decision-making, the rest -- everything is fine, number of consultations, back and forth, you know, drafts, et cetera. But decision-making is in terms of public policymaking in democracies and after my intervention I had a lot of people saying no, they really want other stakeholders to have an equal role in decision-making in public policy processes. Now that really kind of freezes my mind about what are we talking about here. Because public policy and the role of (indiscernible) in public policy is not an issue of Internet Governance. It's an issue of global democracy and it's an issue of national democracies, and the proposition that corporations and even citizen society groups would fit and we equally participate, have equal role in public policymaking, it's something completely beyond my democratic understanding. And I think there's something which I'm missing here because I don't think that could be what people are saying because it's purely post-democratic narrative for people to say that no -- yes, we're talking public policies and we are talking that non-governmental stakeholders will have an equal role in decision-making. So I think whoever make that proposal, I would like to hear more about what really they mean. Because at one point we were ready to separate the technical part of it, the standard setting, logical infrastructure that's different, people can have an equal role, so can we separate, call public policymaking. And people say no, we still need equal role in decision-making in public policymaking. That's beyond my understanding. For me that's the Holy Grail of democracy is what I already said. And if that point is resolved, then my mind could get out of this stalemate of what really is the difference of view between different people here. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder, for that thought-provoking contribution and probably those who propose the multistakeholder approach can give you examples how it is working in practice. I can see a lot of flags. Saudi Arabia are welcome to. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to everyone. In regards to the list of three of the questions, about the roles and responsibilities of all of the stakeholders, my intervention was much covered by from Parminder in regards to the decision-making process. And this is what I would like to hear more about because when I heard the discussion, it seems that like if the roles of the government has been actually implemented since 2005 and now we are examining the role of the governments in regards to the Internet Governance, but in the reality the role of the governments in regards to the Internet Governance has not been implemented. I know that there's been an advisory group, but it does not reach to have a decision-making -- I mean, a decision-making mechanism in regards to Internet matters. What we're talking about here is the international public policy that is -- relates to the sovereignty of the states and relates to the cooperation between states to another state. I was in Korea and the cyberspace conference just recently, and I see some faces who attended that conference. I mean, there was a big number of foreign ministers and most of them talked about that we need cooperation in regards to issues that has to be decided by governments. We cannot have a good faith in regards to the whole private sector and the technical community in regards to aspects. We have to have a decision made by governments in regards to the child, for example, pornography, child online protection. If there was no decision made by states in this regards, we cannot prevent or have something in that matter. For example, there was a big discussion about the privacy, the recent talks about the privacy and that privacy and freedom does not conflict each other. But there has to be a very high guidelines. I heard, too, the Swedish foreign minister, he declared seven principles, global principles to be adopted in regards to the surveillance. That's the things that we -- we -- I'm talking about being a government, that needs to be very high level in terms of international public policy. We're not intervening in the day-to-day operational -- I mean, operation, because we don't want to drift from the role of the governments. Governments does not have interest to go very low in technicality and how things functioning and the standards and all these things. We need to set principles that we negotiate, we have a mechanism that governments can negotiate to each other, governments can solve problems based on agreed international public policies. I will stop at this, but in regards to the roles of the -- of the stakeholders, we still believe that -- I mean, Tunis Agenda, even if it's been nine years, still, I mean, the roles is very reasonable in regards to, for example, paragraph 35. Wherever there's matters relates to the sovereignty of the states, it's the right of the states to tackle these matters. When we talk about the technical policies, that is the international organizations, the technicality and so on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. I would like to ask you, all of us, in fact, that once again, the way I started that we have a mandate and probably we should stick to the mandate and the mandate was established by the United Nations General Assembly. So I really recommend you to discuss the issues we have agreed upon in the first meeting, to concentrate on the questions we agreed on in the first meeting and to follow up on. I can see Sweden, India, and -- I can see Japan. And finally I have Joy, remote participation, and Jimson. After Jimson we shall break for -- we shall break. And I promise, Brazil, you will be the first speaker after the coffee break. So Sweden, India, Japan, Joy, Jimson. >>SWEDEN: Thank you. Well, just to say that to us enhanced cooperation is not only about decision-making, but about cooperation in a broader sense and about dialogue. But even if you're talking about development of policy, I think it's important to do that in an open, transparent multistakeholder model. If we're talking about decisions, legislation, for instance, obviously at the national level, that's what parliaments do. But when we're talking about enhanced cooperation, for us it's much broader than the decision-making part. Sometimes, obviously, states come to that as well. We have to make certain decisions, adopt certain treaties, adopt recommendations, so on. But when we're looking at enhanced cooperation, we see that in a much broader sense about cooperation, about dialogue, about policy dialogue, and Policy Development, because Policy Development is also much broader than just decision-making. So that's where we're coming from. Thank you. >> (indiscernible) >>CHAIR MAJOR: India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. We'd like to make two quick comments. First, I think some pertinent questions have been raised about the definition of multistakeholder approach. I think at some stage during our deliberations we clarify this. I think there are issues relating to -- dimensions have been brought up. One, as I said, at the policy-making level, consultation level to leading (indiscernible) and other sort of relative roles of the various stakeholders in the decision-making process. I think if you are planning to write this particular phrase, I think it's not a bad idea that we eventually lead up to defining what it means in this working group. That's one solution. Secondly, coming to the specific group of questions that you have reflected, I think we have very -- very clearly said that enhanced cooperation is also a dynamic process. It is a dynamic process because the Internet -- the way it is evolving is dynamic. So we cannot have static solutions. The solutions also have to be dynamic. But this does not take away the responsibility of this group today to decide to sort of postpone decisions, to postpone that talk, we will not do it today but we will do it later. Because it's so dynamic we can't really perhaps sort of put our finger on a particular process or a particular mechanism. I think this is important. Bearing that in mind, we have in our replies also defined a large number of areas, largely drawing upon the previous working group which just touched on this. What are the specific roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders. When we refer to Tunis paragraph number 55, I don't think we're trying to create a kind of silo. No, the idea is not to create a silo. The idea is to broadly define what is the relative roles and responsibilities. But this, I think, has been moved on. I think this is a question in which we have in our reply tried to elaborate a number of pages where there are relative responsibilities of various stakeholders. I think if you -- we could act on this list, and I'm sure there are ways to do it because as I said, we are -- we are encountering a new -- new developments in the use of Internet. Going to Question 6 and 7, I think these are closely interlinked as some colleagues have pointed out a little while ago, I think to be very frank, I think governments are also trying to discover what is their role in the Internet. Today the challenge is that. It's not the other way around, that we are trying to define the role of other stakeholders. But I think governments also are very mindful, very cautious, about what are the mechanisms that we look at evolving. Does not in any way sort of lessen or make the dynamic nature of Internet to stifle. It should become a platform for innovation, platform for greater social economic development, because the tools that we are employing back home using this medium -- I mean, I'm sure we all do in our own country, but in India we are very proud of what we're doing. I don't think governments are interested in any way trying to stifle this process. I think that's to be very clear, and we are very committed to that particular process. And this -- while saying that in the relative roles and responsibilities, when you talk of governments, since there is a question about how do we deal with this, since there would be some areas where there is a public policy space that the governments ought to make decisions because they answer to their own people. The medium is Internet here. We agree to that. But there are two -- but the way the convergence of technologies are taking place today, that everything -- any transaction that an individual in society will do will eventually touch upon the Internet space. So there is definitely a responsibility for the governments, both in the national space as well as in the international or the multi -- some colleagues may not like the word "multi-lateral" but in the larger international space, I think it is precisely there that we are coming in. It would only enhance the processes. As I said, it is not with the intention to stifle them. That being clearly said, it is -- on the reply to Question 7, we are looking at further enhancing the role of the stakeholders, other stakeholders, because the big question here 6 and 7, we're touching on governments in one question and other stakeholders. Again, it is not -- I don't think we should vote on the part of saying that there's a prioritization here. No, I don't think that is (indiscernible), but the way it is structured I think the replies are also provided in that manner. We're open to this idea as to how we need to define -- if it is -- if it is a proposition in the room that how do we define the roles of other stakeholders without -- again, the issue is not to undermine the existing roles. It is to see how further it can be enhanced and see that everything can go together. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. It's very thought-provoking and, thank you for the remarks. Japan. >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In addition to the role and responsibilities of various stakeholders, I think it is very important to consider the cooperation among the various stakeholder to facilitate enhanced cooperation and to address the international public policy issues related to the Internet, how to incorporate each of it effectively. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Japan. I have Joy. Joy Liddicoat. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of points to touch on (indiscernible) this discussion about roles and (indiscernible) I know we're focusing on the role of governments but I think it's very (indiscernible) that enhanced cooperation can't be tweaked to (indiscernible) stakeholder design. (indiscernible) I do think it's important we define (indiscernible). Civil society participation is (indiscernible) to be strengthening. And I do think it is important that (indiscernible) part of the Tunis Agenda in relation to the roles of civil society and government is inadequate in linking civil society's role with (indiscernible) and not working well with government. For example, civil society does have a key role (indiscernible). And it is particularly important in terms of the (indiscernible) to governments, specifically analyzing and supporting governments is positively challenging in purporting government action. So I think in that respect, it is important to recognize that it is government's responsibility as well as role. And this is something we have touched on before in our working group discussions. We have responsibility, for example, (indiscernible). I think that is something that can be (indiscernible) debate that can be. I would just like to support the comments from governments of India and Sweden in relation to the (indiscernible) in relation to the government relationships with each other and equalizing those relationships. (indiscernible) submissions from examples (indiscernible) is a third round in relation to (indiscernible). I would just -- support of some of the other participants to think it is helpful of the roles of governments (indiscernible). Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. Unfortunately, we had some sound problems. Your message came through, however. In case you think you can just write down in short summary, what you said, it would be very useful for the record and for further considerations. There were a lot of points which did not come through. The last speaker before the coffee break, Jimson. >> JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you very much, Distinguished Chair. I would like to first thank my brother Parminder for his sincere desire to know why -- (indiscernible), for example, wants to be involved into decision-making. And also want to thank the distinguished representative of India for his own position and Sweden for the response. Well, I'm coming from the private sector in Nigeria. And I witnessed the dynamics of Internet development in our country way back in 2000. By that time, there was serious problems. And the government listened to the cry of the private sector. We need to work together. And so a policy was developed together with the government. And we all agreed, we start together, agree on the framework of implementation. And today it is a success story. Nigeria recalled the I.S. connection rate with mobile Internet in Africa today, what was unimaginable ten years ago. And three days ago, when it comes to electrical infrastructure, the government implemented a position agreed together along with the private sector concern that the electricity needs to be privatized. And the government handed over everything about electricity to the private sector three days ago. So there is a momentum going on. And I'm happy the representative of India said we don't want to be (indiscernible), we don't want to be hindered. We also want to really move forward and transform the socioeconomic life of global citizens and citizens from developing nations in particular. And if that's our objective, why shouldn't we -- if you look at the Internet infrastructure, if we boil down as Virat said, the private sector implements a number of these decisions, then what is wrong if we all -- because we have the agenda of the global citizens in mind. Based on the fact that we're enhancing cooperation, why can't we all listen together and then enhance the framework for decision-making? Yes, we've been discussing the IGF. Very productive. We now understand the processes. But to firm up a way forward, I think it just makes sense for private sector in particular -- and I believe civil society to play a very strong role -- to be involved. And together we will make one Internet forward for the global socioeconomic well-being of our people. That is my thinking, and that is my response to what I think the sincere request from my brother Parminder, why private sector should be part of it. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson. I think we had a very fruitful discussion this afternoon. We are going to continue it after the coffee break. I suggest we have a 20-minute coffee break. And after, when we come back, it will be Brazil who will take the floor, I promise. [ Break ] [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Ladies and gentlemen, can I ask you to take your seats, please. I would like to resume in one minute. So welcome back to the meeting, ladies and gentlemen. Phil? Can you take your seats, please. [ Gavel ] So before the coffee break, I promised Brazil the floor. I have one announcement. During our discussions, there was a reference to the U.K. contributions to the upcoming Council Working Group in the ITU. You have hard copies of the contribution here, I'm not mistaken. So please take your copy. I think it's at the end of the table. So having said that, I pass the floor to Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I'd like to make a few comments that might sound very obvious but I think that in light of the discussion we have had before break, I think it might be worthwhile making. First of all, I think -- and the Chair has mentioned this a number of times -- that we are not supposed and we are not mandated and we should not redraft the Tunis Agenda. So the context, we have the mandate and we have the Tunis Agenda. If we go back to the Tunis Agenda, paragraph 35, which spells the roles of stakeholders -- and I take into account the sense that we should not look at these as something written in stone because particularly, for example, with regard to civil society, we must maybe have a more open mind in regard to the roles. But as regards the role of government, it is very clearly spelled out that the policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of states. So I would like to echo what was mentioned by Parminder and others that may be one basic assumption we should -- that should guide our work is in cooperation with what's in the Tunis Agenda that's public policy for international-related lies within government. But then as we look to the paragraph on enhanced cooperation, there is the differentiation, a clear differentiation, that must be made between those international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and those technical and operational matters. And I think the differentiation is already there. It's not something that we should ourselves decide if we are making or not the differentiation between public policy -- it is already there. What I think the contribution that could come from our group, that would be a major contribution, would be to put some more meat and interpret and elaborate on this. And this brings us back to the issue of separating the different issues having categories. If as a result of our group, we can lead to a better understanding of what are those technical and operational issues, how they are being dealt with now, how from our perspective of enhanced cooperation something could be done to improve this -- and from our perspectives very clearly there is a need for information, for governments, even if they are not involved with this technical and operational daily activities to be more informed and feeling themselves also as involved in a way what's being done there is being cooperated and acknowledged. I think this is something that is missing until now. And, again, on the issue of public policies, to identify those -- to have different categories and in each one to specify whether this is being dealt with in some forum, how it is being done, what can be improved, and in cases there are no home, no -- I think as the APC has mentioned, are orphaned issues. What could we come about? I'm saying this because I saw in previous interventions the kind of rhetorical discussion that I think we should not let ourselves engage. On one hand, some parties are defending the role of one stakeholder that we should not put in place multilateral institutions that do not take into account... I think this is fully acknowledged and understood. What we need is more clarity with regard to very specific issues, categories, what we should do about this to make the spirit what is contained in the Tunis Agenda a reality. Again, we are not reformulating the Tunis Agenda. We are implementing and we are trying to come up with recommendations. But, again, the debates and the prerequisite is to have a clear understanding. And I refer to the text of the Tunis Agenda because some of the things that were said before in a way might be interpreted as seeking to reinterpret what is in the Tunis Agenda. Public policy issue is something that lies with government because it's part of the government mandate to do this. But what are those issues? What are those areas that should lie -- that should fall under this category and how that could be done? I think this is the kind of approach we need. And, again, we have to take a very open view in acknowledging everything that has been done, the decentralized system that should be fully taken into account and incorporated (indiscernible) but also take into account I think in some areas, also some particular mechanism should be -- this is our view. But we are open, of course, to the discussion and see how that can be addressed, even if within an existing mechanism. But I think this is the kind of discussion we might have. Otherwise, we will be falling back into rhetorical discussions. And I think this would not -- especially in light of the time constraints, we have not led to very concrete outcomes. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ambassador. I think we try to avoid rhetoric and rhetorical discussions. And as far as I'm concerned, I would also like to avoid going into definitions. I prefer to have some kind of common understanding. But we are not supposed to come up with definitions, which will take up all our time. I'm sure, if we can come clear to some kind of common understanding, probably it will be sufficient for future work. I don't deny that definitions are extremely useful, and they give clarity. But probably if we want to have some result as a result of our work, then we have to avoid that. United States. >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to take the opportunity of this discussion on several questions to react to some of the comments that have been made in the room and evoke perhaps some of the pieces of our submission that might come into play. First of all, I want to thank Saudi Arabia for their reference to the Seoul cyber conference and just add that, you know, it was part of a process of conferences beginning in London two years ago and then Budapest last year and will continue on into The Hague now next year. And as that set of conferences has transpired, has become increasingly more multistakeholder in its participation and its input and, also, particularly on a set of issues dealing with international security, cybersecurity, combating cybercrime and capacity-building. And I think the discussions there mirror much what they do in other venues in that they address areas (dropped audio) behavior, for example, and also in areas where cooperation is a real key in collaboration across stakeholders. And global collaboration is the key. In that sense, I would really like to affiliate with the elegant comments made by Sweden on the fact that solving problems does not always need a public policy process or a decisional process. That goes very much to the call for practicality and practical measures that we've heard from both colleagues from India and Brazil in addressing what is a very dynamic environment and decision-making processes are very difficult, have a great difficulty in addressing those in a timely manner in what is such a fast-moving environment. Therefore, enabling factors are important. And that is something that we think may be evoked in the U.K. proposal that we have been discussing but also to some extent in our submission, that national frameworks can enable not only consultation and engagement with stakeholders in a national context for national public policy making but also for enabling international cooperation whether it be building transparency with counterparts in other countries, whether it be addressing confidence-building measures or to evoke the full conference, once again, affirming norms of behavior. But importantly for engagement and collaboration on what those practical measures can be don't need a decisional process necessarily to collaborate to find solutions. And then, lastly, there was a comment made about the responsibility of governments in addition to the role of governments. And absolutely we are not saying that there is no responsibility for governments in this area, but it's not only the responsibility of the governments. So I'd really like to leave sort of three notions that encapsulate our response to this set of questions which I hope provide some examples of how not only we undertake in a consultative and multistakeholder process in our public policy making at home but our efforts towards empowering, enabling, and engaging roles for each of the stakeholders in any given particular policy or functional aspect. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, United States. I would like to remind you that for the scribes and the remote participants, it will be very advantageous if you can speak up loudly a bit slower. >>UNITED STATES: Sorry. Thank you for the reminder. >>CHAIR MAJOR: It is not only for you, for all of us. Don't take it personally. No, no, no, no. [ Laughter ] I perfectly got what you wanted to say so I have no problem with that. Anyone want to take the floor concerning -- Virat? >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Continuing from the comments made by distinguished delegate from Brazil and then United States, on the role of governments, typically as we discussed this issue -- and I think Parminder raised the point just sort of directly and eminently -- that this is typically a role for the governments, to represent the interests of all stakeholders at international fora. There are many U.N. bodies that see that process. However, the Tunis Agenda which was a result of perhaps the world's largest multistakeholder meeting, approximately 9,500 or so -- not quite sure what the numbers are -- which included very large participation from the government, recognized the role for other stakeholders on an equal footing along with the government thereby also recognizing the fact that where Internet governance was concerned, other stakeholders had to be brought on board. And this was, in some ways, innovative and a deviation. So we should remember that -- and remind ourselves as we discuss this because we all agreed we don't want to redefine the Tunis Agenda. It is the Tunis Agenda that brings in stakeholders in a way that many other international documents don't in many, many other areas of work. On the issue of public policy at a high level and not doing day-to-day which is the other piece that was made out with regards to government, I think it is important to note that what might be high-level public policy for one is day-to-day for the other. For example, there are organizations that handle CIRs every day and for them it is day-to-day. But for governments, it might be a global dialogue in a public policy discussion. So there is this distinction that we hope to make. This fine distinction is not that easy to make. I'm just taking one case, but we can go with child pornography. We can talk about something as basic as "Internet for all" which would certainly be a sovereign declaration by most governments. And I might add that not a single government in the world, at least today, would be able to do that with the involvement of the technical communities and the private sector. So even high-level principles. Case in point, at the time the Tunis Agenda was written, there were 2 billion mobile connections in the world. There are 7 billion today. 90% of those have been provided by the private sector, not something that the Tunis Agenda could have envisaged. There were 52 million connections in India. There are 900 million connections today, almost all provided by the private sector with a lot of innovation and help from academy and other stakeholders. Internet users, the same. 950 million around the world at the time Tunis Agenda was written. 2.7 billion today. Vast majority of those are on private sector networks. In India, 38 million at the end of 2005. Today, 170 million. So I think as this process evolves -- (echo) -- that role is fairly defined and, as I said, something that's very high level, access for all. Everybody hearing an echo? Should I go again? Okay. I think it's better now. But let me just directly and quickly go to the sections of the Tunis Agenda that are often invoked in discussing the roles of the government. Section 29, it actually states in no uncertain terms "with the full involvement of the governments." Now, it need not have said that. In fact, says "with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, the civil society, and the international organizations" which recognizes the fact that they use the word "full involvement" and immediately after that it states "all the stakeholders." By the way, it leaves out technical community and academia, which is a section by itself here, which shows how much the world has developed. There are five principles here that were not mentioned in the Tunis Agenda as we discussed Section 29. Section 31, "based on full participation of all stakeholders," it uses the word "full participation of all stakeholders." Section 60, that is also referred to, which talks about that "the current mechanisms require attention are not adequately" -- "which are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms." Now, this doesn't mean that they cannot be currently addressed. It says they are not currently being addressed. And there are a lot of suggestions in response to the questionnaire which we have seen which says we can expand, improve, enhance the role of IGF and any of the other mechanisms that currently exist. It does not say it cannot. It says "may not currently." Again, 68: Governments in an equal role. And it talks about development of public policy. It does not say "decision-making" in public policy. It does not use the word "decision-making." So if you were to -- 69, same, uses the word "government on an equal footing." There would be those who could interpret that an equal footing with the other stakeholders. It is also a matter of interpretation. But if you were to focus our entire attention on the Tunis Agenda, then there is sort of sufficient language here which can be interpreted as one that lends itself to an equal participation for all the stakeholders, including some that were no envisaged at the time the Tunis Agenda was written. The last piece that I would like to submit, Mr. Chairman, is that the products, the services, the offerings that are coming out and the innovation that is coming out can become a casualty to any public policy decisions that are not taking into consideration at an equal footing all the stakeholders in the room. And that would be a bit of a tragedy. And, therefore, I think we should be careful as we interpret the Tunis Agenda one way or the other. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Virat. I think it was a very useful reminder about the different paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda. Virat relates that we look at the Tunis Agenda with a fresh eye. Sweden, please. >>SWEDEN: Thank you. Well, just very briefly because I think most have already been said by the last intervention we heard. But I think it's very important that we read the Tunis Agenda as a whole and not cherry pick too much specific articles there. And I wanted also to highlight Article 69, for example. But I think that is very important to keep in mind. I would also like to take the opportunity because our colleague from Saudi Arabia mentioned the Seoul conference on cybersecurity, and that was also mentioned by our U.S. colleague and how it has been -- how that is an evolving process that is to a larger extent also including all stakeholders. But since our minister made certain remarks there about proposals on potential principles on surveillance, I think it's very important to keep in mind in that context that that was a product that he presented, a product of extensive multistakeholder work and multistakeholder dialogue. And I think that's also -- I just wanted to make that remark given that it was explicitly brought up here. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Just a thought. We are here as a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation to fulfill a mandate. We are here to evaluate, to review the inputs which have been submitted by stakeholders. I understand it doesn't exclude that we revisit the Tunis Agenda. It doesn't exclude to refer to other events which have taken place. I would like you to concentrate on our main task. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. The main point I wish to make was just a correction to what my colleague Virat spoke about. There is no mention in Tunis Agenda of an equal footing among stakeholders. It is only mentioned in 69 in a specific relevance of governments in terms of "equal footing of all stakeholders." I'm not presenting my views on this issue, just a correction of the fact. I also heard with a lot of interest Sweden's and U.S.' interventions on the decision-making procedures and relevance of the role of different stakeholders. And I did hear them say that not every issue requires a decision-making process or a public policy response in which I completely agree that, yes, a lot of stuff doesn't require that kind of response. And that also is a part of Internet governance systems. However, as long as we are talking about actual public policy decisions, that still remains that decision-making process has to be done by representative bodies. And just a last part, because this issue has come in two or three interventions, that why private sector should have a role in decision-making is because it lays the infrastructure. And that's a rather new kind of argument because private sector organizes productive systems of the society in all sectors. Medical practices are based on medicines which are exclusively made by the private sector. Surgical instruments are made by private sector. It does not, therefore, mean that pharma companies have a veto on health policies in any country. So I think the fact that somebody has the productive resources is not a good logic to say that they have a role in public policy making. So since that came -- that logic came as explaining why there should be a role here, I thought I should make a comment on that as well. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. Majed. Saudi Arabia, sir. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My intervention is about when I heard our colleagues try to explain the Tunis Agenda, I mean, item by item. I would like our interventionists to concentrate on the mandate of our work. However, I would rather if the paragraphs that has been read in full not just to single out some of the words there just to give the real meaning for that paragraph, for example, 68 and 79, because when it talks about the equal footing, it was following the sentence to enable governments in an equal footing. So that means the governments in an equal footing. However, Mr. Chairman, this is not the place to discuss this. And I would like not to see that we are just arguing about Tunis Agenda and trying to interpret it, as, I mean, everyone differently. But in regards to the multistakeholder model, I noticed that even in the many conferences, they bring this issue that some governments speaks as a government, some governments with the multistakeholder model and the others is against the multistakeholder model. And this is not true. Saudi Arabia supports the multistakeholder model. However, the reality or the fact that people trying to not talk about the roles of the multistakeholder in that model, that's the -- I mean, what's the matter for us. We agree on the multistakeholder model, but we need to implement the roles for each stakeholder. And it is becoming annoying for me just to see in many fora that people just stress the multistakeholder model. And if Tunis Agenda actually recognizes the multistakeholder model, it identified the roles of the multistakeholder model. And what we want as a government, speaking from Saudi Arabia, is to enable the governments to implement its role based on Tunis Agenda and based on the -- what happened after the nine years still. we need to enable governments to take the role and responsibilities. And in regards to the Seoul conference, it's a very good conference and but still the purpose of such conference is to bring the -- raise the awareness, and it's a very good conference to see the different perspectives in a very high level from countries. But at the end, it's for raising the awareness and perspectives of governments or other stakeholders. And for me, this is still missing something. Missing recommendations or policies and output that when we meet we agree on something, we have something like a public policy that we can implement when we leave. And that's what we need in regards to the enhanced cooperation. We can talk and talk and talk, very good talks and we agree in this talk, but we need to see how we implement this. And that's what we need to have an international public policy, to solve the issues we face now in the interim. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. I think you have formulated the role of this group as well because we are supposed to give recommendations concerning implementation of the enhanced cooperation. So I think all of us are aware that at the end of the day we should come up with recommendations. I can see Marilyn asking for the floor and then Virat. Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. I'm struck by a couple of things, and one of them is that for many of us who lived through the four years of the two phases of the WSIS, and participated actively in the final word selection that forms the Tunis Agenda, I think we need to remember that there were two phases and there are -- also the WSIS outcome documents also include the principles, the declaration of principles. Because I think perhaps we're losing a little bit of vision that we came away from the WSIS. If I recall, when we started the first phase of the world summit, stakeholders were not allowed in the room and governments were meeting with all good intentions, talking about highly technical issues but without the participation of the -- of the stakeholders who bring a unique understanding. And who often bring not just technical information but also understanding about legal structures, understanding about social structures, understanding about services and products in the same way that government representatives do but with different -- with different areas of perhaps accountability or focus. Paragraph 72 in the Tunis Agenda, I think the -- our colleague from Sweden reminded us of something that is very wise words and that is, this document was agreed to by heads of state as a totality. In fact, heads of state didn't sign off on a single paragraph. They signed off on the entire document. And there's a lot in paragraph 72 that also talks about the role of the IGF in discussing public policy issues related to key elements of Internet Governance, facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different crosscutting international policy public issues regarding the Internet and discussing issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body. So I would just think that as we go away for the evening we probably all want to think about how we take into account the agreements that were negotiated and how we look at our assignment. We will also have tomorrow morning the initial mapping document to look at and to see if that helps us in thinking about how issues are being addressed and where they're being addressed, and what the satisfaction level is about how different issues are being addressed and it will bring us perhaps to identifying gaps and to being able to think about what spaces and places can be turned to and whether there is a need for any new places and spaces. I'm sorry to hear Saudi Arabia say that it's becoming annoying. I think maybe fatigued is the word, perhaps, not to -- to hear us talk about multistakeholder but I think what I'm detecting is perhaps a different -- different parties have a different expectation about what multistakeholder means and whether multistakeholder is bottom-up participatory and actively engaged at all stages versus consultative. And that may be a difference of opinion by some parties versus others. For myself, as a business representative, I think the issue for multistakeholder is that it must be bottom-up, it must be participatory, and that governments, I think, share with citizens of their countries and of the world the interest in making the most informed, most effective, most responsible policies possible. And to do that, we need to put as many brains and as many perspectives into the discussion as possible. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. I believe this group is on the right track. We have the brilliant brains here, we have the experts here from all stakeholders, and with all the hope that we shall come up with some brilliant recommendations. Are there any other (indiscernible), Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Just a very brief comment, and taking what has just been said by Marilyn Cade and recalling the audience that prepared at the beginning of these -- holding the side around Internet Governance with the exclusion of civil society and now we are thankfully incorporating discussions. But one thing that disturbs me at some point as a diplomat that in some sense we see it to be reverse movement. Governments that were in the front line, in the limelight in the beginning, are now -- there's a clear movement to exclude government, it seems on some -- at least from some -- at least from some -- specifically the beauty of the pact of the Tunis Agenda, the outcome documents emerging from the World Summit on Information Society to recognize that the different stakeholders have different roles and responsibilities. They should work together. They should work mutually to find ways as Marilyn Cade said to lead to very informed decisions, to provide an environment to assist everyone in this collective endeavor. And it is somewhat disturbing to see some -- sometime there is a confusion about this, and maybe in the minds of some it may be the lack of historical experience of some actions undertaken by governments. (indiscernible) maybe not to allow governments to fulfill their roles in regard to -- specifically in the issues we have before us, that is public policy. So there is -- it is -- maybe disturbing is not the right word. But some people say no, let's not leave this to governments. Let's lead together because that's the spirit from -- that is the spirit from Tunis multistakeholder. That's recognizing that each stakeholder has different role and responsibilities. And I find for governments clearly a role for public policy. I think the -- our task is to interpret this in a way that is consistent with the spirit of the Tunis Agenda. But saying that an apple is an apple, a pear is a pear, not making a decision, otherwise the discussion is -- I think the kind of confusion that has been taking place over the years found in the -- the cacophony and the lack of a common understanding of differentiation of situation that requires different responses will not be healthy if we do not guide our work by very clear understanding of the picture, of the differentiation of the situations. And there, specifically trying to figure out what lies -- what falls under this category of public policy that will require, let's say, governments to be enabled to fulfill their roles with the fullest seasoned participation of stakeholders to the benefit of all. But I would again -- I see that kind of, let's say, reversal of the situation and a movement in the direction that is not also, I think, the right direction. I think we should be working together collectively, a joint effort with mutual respect, mutual recognition of different roles and responsibilities and be open on all parts to fully engage to the benefit of the eco-system as a whole. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. I can see Grace, but I have been advised that there is some problem with the microphone for remote participation so I ask your indulgence and I would like to suspend the meeting for about three minutes. So bear with me, and we shall resume in three minutes time. ( break ) >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for your patience. I think we cannot solve this problem but it doesn't affect our meeting. I'm really sorry about the remote participants. We have about 10, 12 minutes to go until the end of this meeting, and I can see two nameplates. So first Grace and then (saying name) and at the end of the meeting I would like to turn to the observers, if they have anything to add, to say or any observation, and then I would like to conclude our meeting for today. So Grace, please, take the floor. >>GRACE GITHAIGA: It's just some very quick -- very quick comments. One on multistakeholder and one on roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders. And it's just to support what Marilyn was raising, that multistakeholder is really -- must ensure participation from all stakeholder groups. It also needs to be inclusive, transparent, and accountable and must be global in nature and needs to be managed in such a way that none of the stakeholders or regions can determine the outcome without the cooperation of all other stakeholder groups and regions. And in terms of responsibilities of the different stakeholders, I feel there needs to recognize that the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders in Internet Governance cannot be fixed and they will vary depending on the issue or the process or task at hand. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Grace. India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I think after the intervention by our distinguished ambassador from Brazil, I think not much is left to say. We also have same as -- concerns in terms of the direction which we are going. And again, we would like to just flag this issue that between enhanced cooperation and IGF, I don't think we're talking one against the other. I don't think that is the right way to go, if you compare them and then we say we're doing good there and everything is covered there and thereby -- the whole purpose of the working group is perhaps not there, and so I think that -- we should not try and sort of reduce the importance and the relevance of this particular working group. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. It was not my understanding that we are going against each other. It is my understanding that we are talking about complementary processes. As I mentioned this morning, interdependent processes. Or rather independent. And we may discuss eventually the same issues in both places, but probably the accents are a bit different and the outcome may be different. So today we have gone through three groups of issues. We have discussed quite a lot of questions, so we have a kind of feel for the questions. And I'm really glad that we have very useful and very fruitful discussions today and it's very promising for the coming two days. I'm turning now to the observers, if you have anything to add or complement. Anyone from the room, any additional comments? In case you don't have any comments, so I would like to see you tomorrow at 10:00. Hopefully by then we are going to have this spreadsheet document from the voluntary task force and we shall resume tomorrow at 10:00. I hope we can go through in the morning the remaining two groups and to go into the deeper discussion on some of the issues with the hope of coming with some recommendations at the end of Friday. So have a nice -- yes, Virat. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Just a housekeeping question. Can we leave some of the documents here, will the room be locked or should we carry everything back? Because there's a lot of paperwork here. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I am advised that you better take everything with you. So thank you for your active participation, and I wish you a very nice evening tonight. Have a nice sleep for those who are having jet lag, and hope to see you tomorrow at 10:00. Thank you. ***Live scribing by Brewer & Darrenougue - www.quicktext.com*** -------------- next part -------------- 7 November, 2013 10:00 a.m. Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Geneva, Switzerland >>CHAIR MAJORS: Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. Please take your seats. I'm happy to see you. You seem to be fresh and ready to work, even though it's a beautiful day outside. So I would like to give you a short summary of what we have done yesterday and what I propose for today. So yesterday we started with the introductory remarks and the most important part is the mandate we have so everybody is aware of the mandate and I would like to continue our work in this spirit. We also agreed on the modalities of the work, that is, we are going to base our discussions on the contributions and we have a document to help us, that is the summary, or the analysis of responses. Which there was an attempt to streamline and downsize the contributions. We also agreed that we are going to discuss the questions in groups, and we had a very good discussion on Group 1 which was about enhanced cooperation, meaning significance and degree of implementation. And there was a kind of agreement that we can we may consider it as the glass half full, half empty. I expressed my wish that we approach in an optimistic way, that is, the glass is full -- half full, and we are going to make it complete. That is our task. In the second group we had public policy issues, mechanisms, and question pertaining to the IGF. And there was a proposal to map different issues. There was a voluntary task force which promised me to have the document by this morning, and I'm happy to report to you that the document has been prepared. So I congratulate to the participants of this voluntary task group and they have done a great job. So after that in the afternoon we discussed the questions pertaining to Group 3, which is about the role of the stakeholders, especially the governments. I sensed a kind of agreement on the multistakeholder approach. Naturally there was -- there were divergences as to the interpretation, what it means. Some said that the role of government may be underestimated or even belittled, and there was some discussion about the interpretation of the Tunis Agenda. It is also felt that the Internet seems changing and it has changed rapidly since 2005 and there are emerging issues, and these emerging issues also create public policy issues. So basically I think that's what -- where we stopped yesterday. I think we had a very good and constructive discussion and what is very important to me, that there was a kind of mutual trust. So I really congratulate you for this very constructive approach. Now, we have the document. I think it will be made available shortly, which was prepared by the voluntary task group. What I propose is just to go over the document. I don't really want to have detailed discussion of the document because I think it's rather complex and it needs further consideration and probably some members of the group would like to take it back to capital and discuss it with other stakeholders or other colleagues back home. So what I propose, once we go through the document, we try and concentrate on Group 4 and 5 questions and eventually, depending upon the discussions we are going to have, we may request the Secretariat to prepare a kind of more elaborate document, a detailed one, in the style we had for the analysis of the responses. And probably this background document may be made available eventually for our next meeting, depending, naturally on us, when we decide to have our next meeting. And this is also depending on where we are going to stop tomorrow at 6:00. So this is my proposal, and I'm just asking the Secretariat if the document is available. So we need five minutes. So in the meantime, I suggest to you that we start discussing Group 4. But before we're doing that, I would like to ask you if you have any comments, remarks, observations, questions, whatever. If not, I would like to ask you to look into the questions in Group 4. They're all of the developing countries, and probably we may continue discussions in five minutes with that. And we may come back to the document after the coffee break which will be, as we agreed yesterday, at 11:15. [ Break ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: You're still reading or would you like to continue? It's up to you. If you need some more time. But I think we can start the discussions. Unfortunately, it seems to me that we have some technical problems for the remote participants. The microphone doesn't seem to be working. So I would like to ask remote participants in case they want to contribute -- eventually -- I believe they can see the captioning. And they can send in written form. Okay. So they can't hear but they can talk. Okay. Good. Okay. So we are going to discuss Group 4, issues related to developing countries. I can see Carlos. >>CARLOS AFONSO: Good morning. It's just information, and I don't know if this is already known but in the summary the responses to the questionnaire by APC are not actually theirs. The ones that are quoted as APC, according to the APC itself, are from the Best Bits responses to the questionnaire. This is just information. The second thing that I would like to note is that most of the quotations in the summary are from developing countries and interesting that I think the emphasis should be more on the opinion of the developing countries than the developed countries themselves. No big deal, but I think it's a bit unbalanced. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Carlos, for this contribution. I believe we tried to make the group balanced, and probably in the room we have representatives who can contribute in this sense and I really encourage everyone to contribute in general and specifically to these questions we are discussing now. Jimson. >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Distinguished Chair, Excellencies, Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen, Jimson Olufuye is my name. Good morning. As you know, I am the chair of the Africa ICT Alliance with the alliance of ICT, private sector groups, institutions throughout Africa. We started last year to bring together the voice of the private sector, and as of now there are about 12 African countries involved that is truly a private sector organizations, the ICT industry groups. I myself, I used to be the president of the Information Technology Industry Association of Nigeria, up to 2011. While talking about developing countries, can be enhanced to effectively contribute to the discussion. I would like to say simply that Africa in particular is very much aware of the impact of Internet to its relevance to development right now and as Democratic Republic of Congo nation in the submission that we need to be very careful with regard to the new mechanism and trying to know -- I want to be aware of the current deliverables and possibilities. So within that understanding, several other states in Africa came together last week with many of the ministers across Africa, we came together. We were in Tegali with regard to transform Africa and they came out with the manifesto that talks about Smart Africa, Smart Africa manifesto. And there's one principle in that manifesto which I found very, very interesting with regard to our government, what's the intention of our government, is that they are going to put private sector first in all their discussions. The manifesto is available with me, I will share it if so required. The African government felt that all stakeholders should be involved in the socioeconomic development of the continent. The summit was shared by His Excellency, president Paul Kagame and was co-hosted by ITU, Dr. Hamadoun Toure, and as I said six other African head of states dealt with many, many stuff. So that is the direction that everybody should be involved at all level of discussion. And in fact, I was privileged because I'm visiting Abuja and I was preparing for this meeting that I have to come to be part of it, as I have the privilege of leading the private sector ICT group for Africa. So when we discuss enhanced cooperation, as we have seen in the mapping, there are a lot of dimensions. Africa needs more engagement, (indiscernible) in the current situations, and also not to take any mood out to drop the momentum that has been contributed positively to the development we're witnessing on the African continent. That's what I want to contribute for the start. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson. And I think it's very important what you have said and very instructive for us. I can see Grace. >> GRACE GITHAIGA: I think this is a very important question to discuss because I was just looking at the other contributions even to the questionnaire and there was very little participation from African governments. In fact, I don't even think there was. And Africa, being, you know, a continent with I don't know 50 countries, it's really outstanding that they did not participate. When it comes to issues of like IGF, national IGF, I know, for example, in Kenya it's been accused of just being a talk shop and not contributing practical solutions to the process. So just thinking about the role of developing countries and how it can be made more effective, I think I would want to support what APC suggested, that we have seen developing countries be excluded at different levels. But also self-exclude. So, you know, addressing this problem is actually not trivial. So the way in which Internet governance for development has been conceived and addressed in IGF and in other global spaces has not been useful. It's been seen as narrow and top-down and often does not go beyond access issues. So probably we need to start thinking of a distributed structure of Internet governance that is well-defined with aims and policies that may resolve this problem and make it obvious to developing countries that the process is worth our time. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Grace. If I've got you right, raising issues is one of the things you think we should be doing. It's very useful. We are heading toward some kind of recommendation. I think that's a better way to go ahead. Baher, and then I see Iran. and Virat. Yes, Baher. >>BAHER ESMAT: Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, everyone. I'm Baher Esmat with ICANN. On the question of developing countries, I think the responses -- or many of the responses that came to the questionnaire illustrated, you know, some of the efforts in building capacities in developing countries, whether in the global space of Internet governance and Internet policy issues or even within the technical space. In the past years -- and being, you know, myself I come from a developing countries -- we've seen a lot of capacity-building initiatives undertaken by Internet organizations, particularly Internet Society and the regional Internet registries in cooperation with national institutes and technical organizations, national technical organizations such as ccTLD, ccTLD managers and areas like IPv6, DNS -- DNS and DNSSEC and so forth. So this is one area that there is, I think, clear recognition of progress made that -- and also for a need for further development and improvement and more sort of engagement in that regard. The other aspect is the national and regional IGFs also in the past couple of years have seen development and progress made in this area. I've been part of one of regional IGFs, the (indiscernible) IGFs, for the past couple of years. We've had two successful annual meetings. We managed to -- we as community managed to attract participation from the global Internet community in the Arab region, particularly from civil society and end user community. And I'm sure that in other parts of the world there have been success stories about national regional IGFs. I think the good thing about the IGFs like the global IGF itself, it provided the platform for the Internet community in developing countries to engage in discussions about Internet policies. This is something that is not often provided at national level in many -- in many countries. Still on capacity building and on the IGF in particular, in the last IGF meeting in Bali we've seen a special track for capacity building in that meeting. We've also seen a daily session, orientation session for newcomers trying to explain, you know, concepts and trends in the Internet governance space, and the feedback we've heard in Bali and afterwards about this session -- about those sessions was very positive. One last remark on developing countries and the sort of enhanced cooperation development in developing countries, the issue of language or the multilingualization aspect of Internet governance, and I understand that there are maybe a couple of questions that deal with this, this aspect separately. But I would like to note that one sort of remark that we often hear from participants in the Arab region is about lack of materials and lack of tools in the Arabic language, for instance, that could encourage and help more participation and get more people to participate in Internet governance fora. This is -- this could cover a range of issues from making materials available in different languages, making tools available in different languages, and also maybe trying to develop a glossary of terms, Internet governance terms in different languages. And one of the recent initiatives that UNESCO, together with ICANN and The Internet Society are undertaking, is to develop a glossary of Internet governance terms in Arabic language. And the announcement of this initiative was made in Bali a couple of weeks ago, and the three organizations will start working on the project in the next couple of weeks and we hope by mid next year we'll have a draft product for discussing these terms. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Baher. Then I think it was Iran who wants the floor first and then Virat. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, everyone. Regarding Question 10, or this group of questions, I think we need to reply to a primary question first. If the developing countries have a role in global Internet governance and then ask how this role can be made more effective, according to what we have received from developing countries through questionnaire and what we heard in the room, many steps should be taken to consider the developing countries has a role in global Internet governance. I believe there is somehow a link between responses to Question 10 and 3. We need to look at what developing countries reply to Question 3. If their responses to Question 3 shows a good extent of enhanced cooperation has been implemented, then we can say they have a role. But as we have seen, the response is different. If we want to hear how this role, which has not been established to be made more effective, it can be done by implementing the Tunis Agenda. Especially paragraph 35, 69, and 68. Participation of developing countries in global Internet governance cannot be done only through participation in dialogues or discussions. That's global level. It's their sovereign rights that has to be exercised, according to paragraph 35a of Tunis Agenda. I believe that investment, technical cooperation, education, capacity building, and so on are necessary but not the main factor in this regard, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Iran. Virat? >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From the replies that have been received, it is quite clear that -- as my colleague stated some time back, that many of the replies that have been quoted are from the developing countries. But, in fact, the substantive issues have been highlighted by those who have contributed from the developing countries. First, if you turn to the Tunis Agenda, Section 3 through 28 are devoted to the issue of financing. I know comments have been made about how important financing is of infrastructure. But if you read through the documents, sir, I would urge that nearly a third of the entire Tunis Agenda not only concentrates on the lack of financing as a major issue but, in fact, lays that as a precursor to the Internet governance issues that begin after Section 28. In fact, it also recognizes in Section 13 that til recently and in the past, public financing was being used for building infrastructure. But that is no longer the case and private sector investments are required. So I would argue, sir, and submit to you that financial investments in infrastructure in a world where merely 40% has access to online services of which Africa at 16% and Asia-Pacific at 32% of the citizens is particularly underserved is a significant and major issue as we discuss the entire proposition of enhanced cooperation. Thank you, an ITU report of 2013 shows that the gender distribution and access of online services is much better than it was when mobile services were penetrating the world. In terms of online access, 37% or 1.3 billion women and 41% men or approximately 1.5 billion men have access to online services totaling to a total of 2.7 billion online people and about 40% households across the world. If you turn to the responses that have been given beyond the point of investment beyond the private sector and the contributions of the technical communities to reduce the cost of access by constantly innovating technologies as well as mutual discussions between carriers to reduce the cost of interconnection and international cable bandwidth, you would see that the IGF both at local and regional levels have received a thumbs-up from nearly across the board from all the communities who have responded. Two from India, Internet Democracy Project and SFLC have been particularly clear about the need and the importance of the idea of processes and the issues that lead to free speech where developing countries are concerned. I would just wrap up by submitting to you in India we have, after hosting the first IGF in 2008, initiated a program to link together multistakeholder groups on a common platform in 2012. It was an informal initiative, a first step to a formal IGF. It was attended by nearly 400 plus stakeholders, 12 bandwidth sessions across two days, 60 speakers. And they covered everything including access but also free speech, issues of capacity-building, net neutrality, and many others which are specific to India but have a linkage to the global five themes of the IGF. This year we congratulate the government of India which has called in a formal process for a national MAG that has been formulated, and we expect that that meeting will be called soon. We also hope that more developing countries will generate local IGFs and issues such as enhanced cooperation are those that are represented by stakeholders at global fora would be discussed nationally and that there would be sufficient opportunity for developing country citizens to participate in a forum such as this through the domestic engagement and also in the global IGFs such as the one that will occur in Istanbul next year. It is not easy for everybody to travel. Each of these cost between 3,000 to $5,000. And so I think the emphasis that has been provided in the questionnaires and the responses of national IGFs as a formal process for not only a dialogue but also development of policy eventually is an excellent step, something that we support and hopefully will participate in actively in the future. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Virat. Very useful thoughts and very elaborate intervention. One remark, the IGF in Hyderabad was the third one. Was preceded by Athens and Rio. (saying name) was the first one, and this was a great IGF. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. And good morning to everybody. Developing countries have a host of problems, and I would focus on the issue of the mandate of this working group which is, in my understanding, international public policy making processes and the extent or absence of developing countries in international public policy making. For that purpose, I would separate the technical processes -- technical policy development processes, ICANNs and regional RIRs, which have their own problems, but that's not what I think primarily we are dealing with here. I would also exclude the (indiscernible) dialect processes, which is the IGF, which has its own issues about developing country participation. But that again is not the principal purpose of this working group's deliberations, and the principle purpose is international public policy making processes. And to understand where developing countries stand in this regard, we have to understand what are the current processes of international public policy making with respect to the Internet. Where does the international public policy making take place? If we understand that, we probably can comment on whether developing countries participate or whether participation has to be improved. Again, removing the technical policy side. We need to focus, what is it that development of public policy making is taking place? And it is my summation that it takes place -- (echo). Is it okay? It's okay now. Yes. >> (speaker off microphone). >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: So it is either made by the big countries, which is where the biggest international -- Internet business is. Concentrated. And by default, it then gets reflected in the global Internet business. And that is take-it-or-leave-it policy for the whole developing world. That's where public policy making takes place, largely in the U.S. in that case. Secondly, it takes place in rich country clubs like the OECD. OECD, as you all know, has a very strong Internet policy making organ which is called the Committee on Computers, Information and Communications Policy. It is an emerging platform, does public policy development. However, I'm very surprised that when that particular Internet policy mechanism is so active and the most active of the OECD parties, the logic is used at the global level that there is not enough public policy issues to be dealt by a divergent mechanism. That escapes my understanding. But in any case, that's where a lot of public policy making takes place. And as you probably all know recently, OECD developed the Principles for Internet Public Policy Making. That is public policy by its own name. Principles for Internet public policy were developed by an intergovernmental process through advisory structures. The same which was India's (indiscernible) proposal which was rubbished on the global level. Exactly the same processes developed public policy principles. And, importantly, they did not develop it only for the OECD. The real intention is to see global adoption of these policy principles. And it is almost formal that it has been sought that country to country, the goal was to say, okay, why don't you agree to these principles because these principles already exist. And that's not a new model. We all know about the Budapest cybercrime conference and the convention. There are a lot of mechanisms which tried to pursue developing countries to sign on by saying it is a good instrument and it is already existing so why don't you just sign it. It is a good instrument, I accept, and you can sign on it. But the process of such kind of exclusive policy making takes place. The (indiscernible) process is a similar one, which a certain number of countries decides certain principles and then we have a bigger country -- group of countries which are cooped, et cetera, et cetera. I think we need to understand where global public policy making takes place and what is the role of developing countries. More or less, they don't exist. They are sold well-prepared governance and a policy framework as take it or leave it. And being on the global grid of the Internet, there is not much option for countries not to accept what is increasing because most of the richest countries have the dominant model. I think what we need to focus on is that this is where public policy making takes place and where developing countries are with that and what is needed to be improved in that respect. Therefore, I would easily say if OECD's CCICP is one of the principle organs for global public policy making, it should be inclusive of all countries. If it actually does become inclusive of all countries, that's precisely the proposal which India gave to the U.N. two years back. There is no difference between that model and the global model which India proposed. So I think we need to focus on where public policy making takes place and the role of developing countries. And capacity-building, yes, is very important. But as we know in WIPO and WTO areas, capacity-building has to be seen as separate from the participation issue. They are two different issues and should not be seen together. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. Sweden, then Brazil, and India. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. And good morning to all colleagues. I agree with what has been mentioned before, that it's primarily a task for developing countries to define what are the main public policy issues of relevance to them and also, of course, to assess to what extent they feel that they can participate in existing global foras that deals with these issues. However, I just wanted to respond a little bit to what Jimson said because we certainly think that it was very encouraging to see the Smart Africa manifesto and some of the -- some of the areas that were identified there such as access, the access issue, accountability, accountability in the sense of better communication between government and citizens, better communication between government and private sector which leads to improved functioning of the society, improvement of democratic system and the enabling environment for the private sector which I think also was highlighted very much. We just want to say that we see that as very encouraging and a sign of a number of developing countries playing a role and taking up a role in Internet -- related to Internet governance issues. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Brazil, please. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an issue for Brazil that's very dear. Usually we -- as we look into our participation in Internet governance, we used to say there are two basic parameters for our initiatives. One of them is our full adherence to the multistakeholder model. This is something that is very embedded in our positions and have strong reference to the model we embrace nationally. And the second one is the development by nation of issues that we also seek to highlight. And we are, of course, aware that the problems around participation of developing countries in Internet governance fora are not exclusive to Internet governance. It relates to development, the problems related to the condition of development: Financial constraints, lack of personal capacity-building. As has been stated before, each of these should be looked into its own merit and deserves specific answers and initiatives. And it affects all stakeholders. It affects governments. It affects civil society. It affects -- as we look into a room which we could adequately face multistakeholder participation, but we clearly see lack of participation from developing countries at all levels, the governance, civil society. (indiscernible). It is of concern to us because it has an impact even for the agenda setting of discussions. I will give an example. I participated in the IGF meeting in Baku, and I thought it was productive and very important for my own understanding of the process. This was my first IGF. But I was a bit frustrated by a discussion we had. There was a session that was termed "development issues," issues of concern for developing countries. And I was a bit surprised to realize that the most important topic on the discussion was how to expand in the developing world the new generic top-level domains. That was the issue. What can be done? Why did not developing countries adhere en masse to this initiative that is so good, so -- that was devised to address developing countries? Why did it not happen? What can be done to address this? Of course, even some developing countries members took -- had an apologetic tone and said in our case, maybe there was not much awareness about this, what can we do. We need to develop business. And I took the floor and I said, I feel a bit frustrated because I thought we would be discussing issues that are on the agenda for developing countries that are not only in this forum, like access, finance, capacity-building. And all of these were not in the discussion. And I tried to provoke a discussion on that. There was no discussion on that. And people started -- again, were: What can we do to foster gTLDs in developing countries? So I think even for the point of your agenda setting, it is important to have developing countries' participation in order to impact on the agenda. And then it brings me to think how can we reconcile these constraints for participation and that leads sometimes to a call for -- to have a single fora to deal with all the issues since there is difficulty to participate in a multitude of Internet governance-related fora. So maybe an easy way is to let's make one single place where we can discuss one thing and make decisions for. I don't think that would work to that extent because we, of course, want to make sure we keep in mind a distributed structure of Internet governance that is something that could not be touched and should not be touched upon. But. How can we reconcile this need for more meaningful participation, involvement with this distributed structure of Internet governance? For myself, I think one clear answer is to provide some ways in which information could flow more. I think it's important to devise ways in which the lack of physical participation could be compensated by access to relevant outputs, information arising from those fora. I think this would be one way to maybe -- a limited way to address. But, of course, we will not be looking to all -- I seen a number of 150 processes that deal with Internet. So maybe you do not need information on everything that's going on in all fora. But as regards relevant things that are taking place that could impact on developing countries, I think we should devise maybe a friendly user mechanisms in which information could flow better. I think that would be one way to assist. And from our perspective -- and then we refer to the proposal regarding enhanced cooperation as such, this difficulty regarding participation reinforces our understanding and our conviction that we need some platform that would enable for discussion of issues related to Internet governance in a holistic, integrated manner. I think this would be an additional benefit besides filling a gap in the overall structure. That would also assist developing countries, but participation enables to have a more comprehensive view of issues. Even if this platform, I think how that should be devised, would it lead to decision-making or would it be of a more informative and policy discussion, this is something we should maybe evolve discussion. But, clearly, there is a need for a place in which such a discussion could take place. And I would see an additional benefit regarding this as a tool to assist developing countries' participation. And here I mentioned at all levels, not only governments but also stakeholders. So I think I will stop at this. But I think this issue is very clearly linked to the notion that we need to put in place some structure that will allow -- what issues will be dealt with by this, how this could be addressed. I think it's something for further discussion. But, clearly, we see a need for this as a way to assist and to foster developing countries' participation on Internet governance-related discussions. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ambassador. I share your impressions about the Baku meeting when we were confronted with the reality. Reality is always difficult to face. After that, I think it was India who asked for the floor. And then we have the remote participant, Joy Liddicoat. And then Carlos and Marilyn. Okay. So India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. Good morning to colleagues in the room. Today I think we are confronted with this very important dimension of our discussion. As we see it, there are two key pillars on which we could perhaps look at coming up with some recommendations. The first pillar is where we are talking about countries or regions or places where there is no access to Internet. That is one dimension of the issue, where if they're not part of this process, there's no question of their seeking any role in the governance eventually. On that I think we have come up with any number of subproblems within that category. The issues, how do we improve this which is leading to a digital divide of a kind, which in 2005 and 2013/'14, I think there were regions that have been left behind. The divide is increasing exponentially. They lag behind in an exponential manner because the speed at which progress on Internet is making would make them deprived for eternity if we do not address that. So that's an important dimension. As a working group, we should look at recommendations under which I think very eminent suggestions have come earlier. The speakers mentioned about the need for financing. How do we touch upon the issue? Should we make recommendations on that? Secondly, whether capacity-building in terms of the latest technology transfers or training programs, et cetera. Then coming to the other side of it, wherever there is access to Internet, then the second challenge is those regions and countries respective of the origin, in this case largely we are talking about developing countries, whether they have any significant role in Internet governance-related policies at the international level. I think there's the second challenge. If you are looking at the later part of it, I think we are about to discover that we are all wanting to be part of a process through a mechanism but that mechanism at the international -- or global level is not present. We have forums for discussion. We have forums for dialogue. But forums where we can actually make a contribution to the extent of being able to decide, again, is something which is lacking. A recognition of this fact has come through in the replies that have been given as well as in our discussions. I think it will be very important also to touch upon this issue as we make a recommendation, at which point in time then the participation of developing countries in the Internet governance would become a subset of that particular larger recommendation we intend to make. I think that's where Tunis Agenda has made the recognition that we should maximize the participation of developing countries in Internet governance. But if we do not even have a structure, then why talk about developing countries? I mean, they are part of the subset of the global community. So I think it remains in a vacuum. If we do not create a structure or a mechanism for effective participation of -- I think it is at all levels. I think as the Ambassador of Brazil very rightly pointed out, this gap exists at all levels, whether it is government, whether it is civil society, private sector, or academia in developing countries. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. I think now the floor is the remote participant. That is Joy. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. Can you hear me? Thank you. I wanted to -- (background noise). (indiscernible) -- I see the participation is indiscernible. If the secretariat could advise (indiscernible). Okay. Thank you. I wanted to enter a question and just emphasize that while I agree capacity of developing countries necessarily (indiscernible), I think it's very important to remind ourselves in this working group that the (indiscernible) is not conflicting and that (indiscernible) does exist in developing countries and that all (indiscernible). In other words, I think we have seen new leadership and new development from developing countries including India (indiscernible) policy issues. And I would (indiscernible) very strongly that developing countries are part of this and somehow should be (background noise) (indiscernible). I was thinking of the Human Rights Council with a notion on (indiscernible) -- >>CHAIR MAJOR: Joy, I'm sorry to interrupt you. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: The Human Rights Council has been (indiscernible). >>CHAIR MAJOR: We have technical problems. And I think if you can write it down, your contribution, in a brief way, probably the secretariat can read it out and we can take it into consideration. But I'm sorry, at this point in time, I think the technical problems just prevent us to follow what you're saying. So if you could do us the favor to go to the chat box and write down what you wish to say. Thank you. I think the next one was Carlos, I believe. No, sorry, sorry, Saudi Arabia. Sorry, sorry. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to everyone. In regards to Question 10 about the role of developing countries and how can it be more effective in the global Internet governance, as my intervention covered well by some of the previous speakers, however, the sequence of the questions that Number 10 came after the questions that we asked how enhanced cooperation could be implemented to enable governments. And then we said how can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their roles and responsibilities. And when answering this, and even looking at the report, there was many inputs that the missing of having a fora for countries and governments to sit and discuss these important issues in regards to the global Internet governance does not exist. And with Saudi Arabia, when we came to this question, we already stated the need to be a fora or a platform for governments to discuss these issues. And how can this be made more effective taking into consideration -- into consideration the establishment that this platform is through balanced equal footing participation through all countries. However, in regards to the international Internet public policy issues, Question 15, that are of special relevance to developing countries, I can list some which is a very important such as multilingualization. This includes the local language content search engines and multilingual e-mail. International Internet connectivity, this includes affordability, Internet exchange points, and differences in the cost of carrying traffic. IPv6 transition, most developing countries have limited fixed line infrastructures, and communications is primarily through wireless technologies. IPv6 is much better suited to mobility than IPv4. And as has been stated, contributions to capacity-building for Internet governance, this includes financing, training, and support. Developing countries must be involved in the development of public policy and must be able to present their interests in the evolution of the Internet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. I can see Carlos, Marilyn, and I think after this we are going to break and we come back after the coffee break. It's 11:45, and we may continue the discussions on this issue. Carlos, please. >>CARLOS AFONSO: Just basically to complement what Benedicto said besides the example of this issue of gTLDs and the (indiscernible) of discussing the developing issues, et cetera, there's another example which is the famous cybercrime convention of Budapest in which some developed countries got together, drafted a convention (indiscernible) and then came to us, developing countries, and said look, why don't you sign it? You should sign it. It's a great convention. And we replied no, we didn't -- we don't sign. Why? Because we did not participate in the discussions. Where are the -- where is the equal footing, you know, that we all keep raging about. So these are examples of practices that we have to try and avoid, and really in the convention the question of subsets, developing countries being subsets, I don't think we are subsets. We have to be equals. And the governments of developed countries must, you know, act on an equal footing with us, if they want our participation, those initiatives and structures, et cetera. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Carlos. Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Before I go on to make a statement about Question 10, I want to respond to the comment about that particular workshop and a couple of other workshops that are like it. I was, too, fairly disappointed in what I thought came across as a -- what I -- I'm from business, we call that mar com, marketing communications. I didn't like it at all. I didn't think it was within the spirit of what we should have been planning for a particular workshop. And particularly not with a title that it belonged in. However, the Baku IGF overall was filled with rich and interesting issues and workshops and we met in a country in a particularly geographic sub-space that we had never been to before in the IGF. So I just wanted to not lose sight of the -- and to note that as the ambassador said, he was focused on a particular workshop, and I really share the concerns that he expressed. But I want to go on to say that I think it's actually fair to say that within the IGF we are still working hard on how to thoroughly incorporate the development discussions into the IGF, that that is very much a work in progress. We made progress, but I want to just say I think we can do more. And when we talk later about mechanisms, I will probably say more. Now I'd like to make a comment about I'm obviously not from a developing country. I live in the United States, or on united.com. I'm not sure which it is. Most of you know that I travel a great deal. I go to many, many different countries and I -- I also teach a course that is a survey course that is attended only by citizens from developing countries, that is focused on cybersecurity, the use of ICT's and disaster remediation, and Internet governance. The course attendees range from system administrators to managers in telecom companies and IPs to regulators to boards of regulatory authorities to people who work for ministries. And in the survey course what I talk about is the Internet governance ecosystem. And I talk about how to get involved in the GAC and how to get involved in the IGF and how to learn about whether there is a national or regional IGF in your country or region and if you're not engaged already, who to reach out to to become involved. I have never had any of the students, the attendees -- there are usually about 22 to 24 -- I have never had a single one of them say I don't want to go to an ICANN meeting. I don't want to go to a national IGF. Instead, they say how can I get involved? How do I find the resources? How do I get my management, whether it's private sector or government, how do I get them to understand the importance of Internet governance and why it's important to decisions we're making about our country. So now I'm going to use an analogy. In the days of the narrow band Internet when we coined the words "E-commerce" that was only talked about in very specialized places. Today much of commerce is online in one way or another. We talk about the implications of the online world and about doing business online in a widely distributed number of places. I think for myself that what we need to focus on is strengthening and deepening the awareness about what Internet governance policies are and how you need to participate, both at a national level and to strengthen -- now, some in the room may still at the end of the day think that there is a need for a separate and new. But I hope we don't lose sight of the importance of definitely strengthening and deepening the mechanisms we have now. I'm going to go back to a comment made by Barat (saying name). We need to find more mechanisms to provide initial funding to bring participants from all stakeholder groups, including business from developing countries, into these mechanisms. We can't stop by saying there is no money. My experience is once an NGO or civil society or business or government comes to a couple of meetings, they become much better able to justify the participation and to articulate the value to their management stream. And after a couple of meetings, they're able to then become an ongoing participant and they're also much more able to use online participation when they have a network of colleagues to relate to. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. I promised you that we are going to have coffee break, but I also promised yesterday that we are going to have a segment for observers. Now it is your time. So if you have some comments to give, please do. >>MATTHEW SHEARS: Thank you, Chair. And good morning. Matthew Shears with CTD. Just two very quick points. With regards to the comments that are in the summary document and the comments that have been inputted by participants to this process, speaking as a representative of civil society, there are a significant number and a great diversity of views coming from civil society that have been inputted into this process. Many of those organizations that have submitted comments are from developing countries, or represent developing country interests. And I would like to suggest that many of those views do not recommend, do not suggest that moving to a global mechanism is necessarily the way that is going to particularly solve the issues that developing countries have in dealing with public policy and public policy issues at the international level. So I think it's -- it's a leap, if you will, certainly from civil society inputs to go from a concern about developing country interests at international level to a global mechanism. And I would recommend that people look again at some of those inputs. I'd like to also very firmly agree with the Brazilian ambassador. This is very much an issue of information sharing. I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to agree with a need for a platform, but certainly there are information sharing platforms that are under development and one is the European Union's new platform that they are establishing for global Internet policy observatory which I suggest the -- the aim of that is very much what we've been talking about, the need to provide information -- on organizations to provide policy information and to share information globally. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. India, I can see you want to take the floor. Let me ask for your indulgence and let's come back and I'll give the floor -- you will be the first after coffee break. So we are going to have a coffee break, up to 50, 10 to 12:00 and come back. [ Break ] [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Welcome back. You have copies here on the table. Another thing, we had Joy -- Joy to intervene and we had technical problems. So I'm told by the Secretariat -- [ Gavel ] Can I have your attention, please? Thank you. I'm told that the technical problems have been resolved for the remote participation so I suggest you listen to Joy Liddicoat. Joy, the floor is yours. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me? >>CHAIR MAJOR: We can hear you. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. I wanted to make a point in relation to the last discussion. In particular to emphasize that while it's important to acknowledge the concerns about capacity building for developing countries, and certainly on the (indiscernible). I think it's also very important that this working group acknowledges that developing countries do have many capacities so leadership and a variety of (indiscernible) that are critically needed, not only in relation to the Internet governance fora itself but also in other areas such as in the Human Rights Council, (indiscernible) and leading discussion of the relation of the same human rights as offline as online and I would be very consumed if there was any suggestion in the summary from this meeting which inquired that also civil society from developing countries are of the view that new mechanisms are needed to deal with the variety of -- some variety of issues on the discussion. Often civil society in developing countries provides barriers to existing mechanisms and assume a new mechanism would pose more difficulties. So I think I want to emphasize that point and think more discussion about the particular issues which I believe the changing needs and the mechanism exercise is specific issues which are not adequately covered by existing mechanisms and to understand those issues. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. Before the coffee break I promised India, and I always keep my promises. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. Quickly just a small clarification. I think Carlos had referred to subset and the context in which I was mentioning was that the global Internet public policy issues which we will discuss, those are relevant to the developing countries with a subset of that and not the countries a subset of anyone else. So thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I think the point is well-taken. Grace, you wanted to take the floor? Okay, please go ahead. >>GRACE GITHAIGA: Thank you, Chair. In the morning during my contribution I did point out that one way of dealing with this issue of making countries participate in Internet governance would be to have a distributed structure of Internet governance that is well-defined within said processes and then, you know, in a way it will make developing countries know which processes are worth their time. I want to note a number of questionnaire responses emphasized a value of a distributed approach to policy-making. And I think this is very consistent with the assumption that different policy issues may imply different mechanisms and that actors who should be involved -- and which actors should be involved in related policy divisions. So my suggestion is before we start thinking of establishing a new platform, as has been suggested, I think we need to map what the issues are, whether they're being addressed now, whether this is adequate, and whether we need new mechanisms to address them. And I think this is an exercise we started yesterday by compiling a list of issues mentioned in response to Question 4 and my suggestion is that we continue with this process. And lastly, it would be important for us not to forget that the IGF has been central platform to addressing Internet-related public policy issues, which is truly inclusive in multistakeholder. So before we start building new structures, new mechanisms, perhaps it is time we thought of improving of how -- or how we can strengthen the IGF and what would be needed to implement this improvement as recommended by the previous CSTD working group. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Grace. It is my understanding that the IGF has made a great progress in this aspect and it's trying to implement the recommendations of the previous working group. Just let me remind you of one of the main recommendations, that is IGF should discuss policy issues in its program and that's actually what has happened during the Bali meeting. There were policy questions which were discussed, and I think the output will be made available to all those who are interested and naturally, including governments, all stakeholders will benefit from this. I can see Japan, Brazil, Ellen, Virat. So Japan, please. >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As other colleagues pointed out in the morning session, in order to increase the participation of developing countries in the global Internet governance, I think it is very effective to consider under implemented the measures to enable the developing countries to attend the existing international fora dealing with the Internet-related public policy issues such as IGF and to utilize (indiscernible) fora effectively, sufficiently. For example, raising awareness, information sharing, and enhancing remote participation. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Japan. Talking about remote participation, we have one request but I'm not sure if Avri is -- would like to take the floor. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Can I be heard? Yes. I hadn't actually requested the floor, but since I had got it, I had sent a note and basically at that time I was very much (indiscernible) with what Matthew Shears had said and wanted to indicate that civil society from developing regions has its own voice and that voice is conflicted with the new favor of multistakeholder mechanisms, the multistakeholder mechanisms that are existing with perhaps a single or a few other exceptions. And until such time as we concentrate on remote participation that meets current standards, it will be really difficult for these existing mechanisms to reach their full fruition and for people to actually participate in those venues. The technology does exist for supported, very full remote participation, but we need the (indiscernible) and perhaps the financing to make sure that those things exist. The idea that -- of creation of new structures would help. It's really difficult to understand, as those who present us with new opportunities, for difficulties in participation. We really need to focus on the (indiscernible) we have, especially the IGF, and strengthen them as opposed to dissipating our energy, which is small, in new directions. So I'm really entreating us to really focus on strengthening what we have and truly focusing on making sure that remote participation is really a method of participation for people from developing regions of all sorts. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. I think your intervention was a good example that remote participation is working indeed. I can see Brazil and then I -- Ellen, you wanted to take the floor, Virat, and Jimson. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I took the floor to complement what was pointed out by Carlos Afonso in which the Budapest convention also provided an example of the need to involve developing countries' participation from the start. He mentioned an important point for us, principle that we follow that usually we do not adhere to an instrument in which we did not participate. But this is not an absolute in itself. Otherwise, we would not adhere to any organization and be global -- regional in which we were not in the initial group. So this is something that we could be flexible about it. But there is a practical reason why we want to be involved in -- especially in global negotiations, because others make sure that the outcomes will be in line also and will be acceptable for us according to our constitutional legal requirements and this is not the case at this convention. As it is now, it would require from us and others to change national legislation. Which is something we might do in case there is national consensus for that, but this is to indicate the need to fully involve in global negotiations some aspects because otherwise we might be found in a position in which we (indiscernible) at the Budapest convention. We see a lot of (indiscernible) in its purpose in the instruments that we are -- it is difficult for us from the point of view that this would entail internal changes that we are not prepared for the moment to make. And this leads me to indicate and to reinforce the need for developing countries' participation at large, to make sure that the -- and I repeat, the agenda (indiscernible) from the beginning will address also developing countries' concern. And if we think that one of our overall objectives regarding this review, 10-year review, we think largely in terms of outcomes, is that we want to make some substantial input for the millennium development goals follow-up. So I think we should give very serious consideration to mechanisms and ways we can collectively devise to enhance participation because otherwise the input that will come maybe will not correctly address developing countries' participation. And this is one point. And I'm also prompted by the comments that was made by Ms. Grace, I'd say we fully concur with this vision. I'd just like to read out one part, small part of our contribution in which we say, "The discussion of any new suitable framework or mechanisms must be preceded by the assessment of those current arrangements." So that is why we think the mapping is a very -- is a prerequisite to discussion. We need to know what is there, what is on the table, so we can provide for some intervention on what exists and if there are any -- and the second part says, "The discussion of any suitable framework or mechanisms should be guided by the purpose of addressing perceived needs or filling gaps." And to that end, Brazil proposes first to deepen discussion on what we want before discussing how to achieve what we want. So we -- we really think we need some good information. I think this -- we thank the group that prepared this initial work on the mapping. I think maybe we'll adjust this later on, Mr. Chair, but I think this is a good way forward in providing us with more good information which we can build upon. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. India, this is my intention, that we shall briefly discuss the paper because of the indications of this paper are much greater than to be discussed in a very short time. But before doing that, probably we proceed with the discussion we are having right now. So it is Ellen who asked for the floor followed by Virat and then Jimson and Marilyn. Ellen, please. >>ELLEN BLACKLER: Thank you. This is Ellen Blackler. I'm one of the business representatives from The Walt Disney Company. I wanted to add something to the discussion so that we continue to be aware of the less formal ways that the community moves to address issues of concern raised by developing countries. Over the past year or two for the discussion at the IGF and other forums, as well as empirical research documenting the availability of content to driving adoption, we and others have put a focus on how to create an environment that encourages locally-relevant content creation. By way of example, at the IGF for the first time there was several sessions on encouraging locally-relevant content that were well attended by participants from developing countries. I attended two sessions, one organized by Google and one organized by Disney and UNESCO, that shared specific best practices in areas that are necessary to develop a robust content creation environment. The panels addressed a range of issues from developing local hosting capabilities to creating sustainable business models for content creators and other efforts such as the partnership we've developed with the Bandung University in Indonesia to encourage an app development industry by creating a prize contest for a locally-developed app. Attendees at these sessions were engaged and I hope came away with some helpful ideas and information. All of that is an -- activity is an organic response to this concern that we've heard about the need for local content development. And I'd like us to keep in mind the important role of that kind of activity when we talk about ways to address these issues. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ellen. Virat, you asked for the floor. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to endorse the point made very strongly by the honorable delegate from Brazil about the fact that we need to carefully evaluate first the issues at hand and find out whether there is an existing mechanism to resolve those issues and whether there is an existing home for those. The working group has prepared the list that was circulated earlier and has about 465 word issues listed in what is lovingly called the laundry list. But I can assure you that after we've taken away the duplicates you will still have about 100-plus issues left there. This is based on the estimates that we did yesterday. It is also important to note that apart from existing homes that might be available by way of existing mechanisms, a large number of these issues are purely domestic, for national governments to resolve. For example, a deep discussion on access and how important that is and whether there is a role for global governments and global stakeholders or whether that's mostly a national issue will have to take place before we discuss the final set of outcomes and mechanisms that are available or need to be made available. So I suppose the task would include both evaluation of this list of issues, whether existing mechanisms and a division between national and global issues. And after that exercise has been completed, we can proceed to have discussions on the options. The last pass that I wish to submit, Mr. Chairman, is about the IGFs and the fact that the speaker on the -- on the remote participation spoke about technology, and we strongly endorse the fact that this is a group dealing with technology and Internet. We must find ways to ensure a higher level of participation, especially from the developing world in global events using technology because currently it would seem that the use of technology is a fraction of what is possible, if everybody put their minds to it. So whether it's a matter of cost or technology, I think that is an important area of focus. We should note, however, that to ensure participation from the developing worlds the IGFs have been held, including the next two, in the developing world so that cost of stay, travel, et cetera, are lesser than they would be if it was in a capital city of a developed country. So there are some efforts underway. More have to be made. But before we discuss the issue of mechanisms it would be important to allocate them into existing homes and domestic forces global. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Jimson, please. >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you. Thank you very much, Distinguished Chair, Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen. Well, I just also want to underscore this viewpoint who have been expressed before but to relate it to my own direct experience. First, as far as remote participation, it cannot be overemphasized, the need for us to get it right at every meeting. I recall the last IGF in Bali, well-organized and also I appreciate Chengetai and Steve and the government of Bali. I could not travel, but Baku and Abuja I could still contribute in my sessions, in the workshops. Though I have to wake up 1:30 a.m. until 5:00 a.m. in Abuja to be connected, but, you know, I was so happy. You know, with the webcast I saw everybody clearly. They could hear me. There is some little glitches here and there, but I could send my contribution and it was so beautiful. So we need to strengthen that. It's so important. And I will give that channel for developing nations, countries, for their voices to be heard. And really even in Africa, in our own organization, you know, that spans 12 countries in Africa, we meet every month and we use remote communication to move -- to move on, to communicate. I also want to recognize or say that really we have some group of people calls SMEs, small and medium enterprises, that generally need to be heard. There's no doubt, to be there physically is better than remote because now you can hear me clearly in this hall than breaking. So small businesses have challenges in terms of funding. It's not cheap. Virat said it. Many of us agree, it's not cheap. Must have a way or mechanism to enabling this sector of the voices to be heard. Many are willing to be around now, representatives but are not able to. For example, I have to sponsor myself to be here, and it's expensive. So we need to look at, you know, business financing for that. Then more investment in awareness, synergy, and collaboration. For collaboration is so important. Among all stakeholders for different organizations, countries, collaborating together. Even within the countries, collaborating together, creating more awareness so that we can have a grasp of what we have attained already, and that will help a great deal. So that just briefly what I want to add to the discussion on the ground. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson. Yes, I can confirm that remote participation has challenges and has costs. But this is probably the way forward to get more people on board. And I was really happy to be with you on the same panel, your being I don't know how many thousands of kilometers away. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Yeah, so I was trying to pass on to the mic to any potential speaker because my issue is a little different from the one under discussion. It came to mind because Virat was talking already about already dealing with the questions kind of thing. Since I have the mic, I will make my point. I think as we have this long list of issues, when we go through, it gives you a good mental map of what kind of things need to be dealt with. I remind that I and Marilyn were agreeing on some categories of issues which was like already being dealt somewhere. Second was being dealt with but not in a holistic matter in the sense of connecting with other Internet issues. And third was largely not being dealt with anywhere. And the fourth one which Marilyn added which is more of a trend, which is something in the future, and probably policy work is a great focus in that kind of thing. So once you start kind of bunching -- >>CHAIR MAJOR: Parminder, excuse me. We haven't closed the discussion on Group 4. We come back discussing the paper. I'm very sorry about that. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Yeah. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So if anyone would like to contribute to the questions in Group 4, then this is the time to do it. We have had very, very intensive discussion on that, very interesting one, and very constructive one with a lot of proposals, a lot of interesting ideas. And we have to continue to think about these proposals and how to synthesize them into a set of recommendations. So I'm really happy that this discussion has taken place from so diverse aspects and so diverse points of views. If you still want to contribute to that one, this is the time to do it. If not, then we can go to the discussion -- a short discussion of the document which I think will take us to the lunch break. And in the afternoon, after lunch break, I would like to continue with the questions in Group 5. Hopefully, we can finish with Group 5 during this afternoon. And as you know me, I'm always optimistic. But eventually tomorrow, we can start drafting some recommendations. And it seems to me that the best candidates for the recommendations are the questions we have discussed now. So even though there was a big discussion, I could feel a lot of convergence of ideas and a lot of convergences of recommendations. So, Marilyn, if you would like to comment on Group 4 -- No. So anyone on Group 4, questions, development issues? In that case, let me ask the members or one of the representatives of the voluntary task force to introduce this paper for the group. Any volunteer? Thank you, Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Well, I'm going to open my introduction by asking two people to please stand up, Lea and Sam. Please stand up. That's why you have this document. So can we start with a round of applause. [ Applause ] Now I'm going to try to explain it. When we spoke yesterday, we were taking Question 4 and doing a mapping exercise. And we had a number of categories that we proposed. So I agree with Virat. We have down the left-hand column the laundry list. Let me tell you where we got the laundry list. The team went into the submissions and pulled out every bullet and plugged them into this list. So there's a terrific amount of duplication, and we are going to talk about how to synthesize the duplication. But we felt it was important that you have a sense of the depth of the contributions in a single document. We added a column that's now called "draft categories, work in progress." And this is an effort to use your expertise and contribution to come up with a more homogenized list to go down from 400 and some duplicative into X number that are categories that everyone feels comfortable with. So the labels need to be descriptive enough that the submitters agree with them and that all of us understand what they mean. I'm going to give you an example. What you have in the draft categories is our effort to come up with labels or terms. Those aren't cast in concrete. The next category is called "consolidated groupings." That's where we want to plug in the actual headings or issues that the room agrees with. So let me pick an example. We -- if you look at Number 7, it's called "IPR." We would -- and it appears in several places. We would assume that IPR, or intellectual property rights may be spelled out, would be a common term that if everyone agreed every time we see IPR, we would put the discussion about that topic and we would accept IPR under "consolidated grouping." If you look at Number 1, the administrative of root zone files and system, we call that "critical Internet resources." The room might not think that that's granular enough. So you might decide you want to call it something else. All we're trying to do is give you a framework to build on. I will just say a very interesting thing, if you look -- if you glance at this, you can begin to see -- And we started out, Ambassador, we started out with the list from Brazil because it was in the document and then we added on from there. But if you go over to -- I'm just going to point to 117, 118, 121, 122, 133, 134, you're beginning to see as you keep going through the bullets the same phrases being repeated. So, obviously, our next step -- we did about a hundred. Our next step is to get rid of all the duplication and come up with the consolidated grouping list using terms everybody agrees with. The next step we talked about doing was to identify the current activities and approaches that are underway and then to Parminder's point, then have a conversation about I'm calling it the "how satisfied are we." And I think Parminder -- Parminder, these four categories, that's right now under a heading called "status" because we didn't really know what to call it. So you've got a document that we really need everyone to look at and to think about are you happy with the draft category labels that we provided to you to think about. Do you want to change some of them? And how do we do this quickly so that we can actually go ahead with the next step? But I don't think this small team is volunteering to do all of the work without more help. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. I would like also to thank all those who participated in establishing this list. And frankly speaking, the list is frightening. [ Laughter ] >>MARILYN CADE: I'm sorry, Chairman. I thought you meant exciting. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. It's really exciting and probably we have to calm down. And we need some time to think about. I don't assume that the horrendous task of merging and eliminating duplications is within our capacity right now. But we are probably -- it gives us a lot of thought for -- to think about in the upcoming days. I reiterate what I said in the morning, that this is a very good beginning to take stock what we have and what we called the mapping exercise. So probably this is a very good first step. But I would suggest that we might think about going further. As I said in the morning, I would like to ask the secretariat to provide this in one of the future meetings we have with some background document in this respect about the existing mechanisms and existing examples of enhanced cooperation. So I believe it will be extremely useful for this group. And it doesn't mean that we don't have to work on this document ourselves but probably not right now. You may take your time probably. You may like to consult with your colleagues back home as well. So it's really up to you. It is really your decision what we're going to do with this document. So any comment regarding the document itself? Parminder, please. And then Chris. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. I'll continue with the comments which I was making earlier. So I think we have a nice list here, and I agree with the categories as they are, including up to the status which is where we would be able to say whether we think they are being dealt with, they are being dealt with but not in a holistic manner, they have largely not been dealt with, and they are future trends which require a lot of policy work because the idea is that this is what -- and I agree with both the phrases, frightening and exciting but definitely enormous set of things which are needed to be done and which is the mandate of this group to figure out -- not to do it but to figure out the mechanism of what could start to do something about it, the mechanism and not addressing these issues. Therefore, from these issues we have to go towards mechanisms, which is our mandate. And I think the translation starts from the status which is the four categories we mentioned, and then also the categories which I tried yesterday which is the technical policies, oversight and public policies. Like, the one, administration of root zone file and system, it is either one or two in that case. And as Ambassador from Brazil said, these three categorizations already exist in the relevant sections of Tunis Agenda. They have very clearly said day-to-day operation is one side, principles related to CIRs is another thing, which is oversight, I understand, and other public policy issues is three. So they have that. So after the status, if we do that, we can then start entering what needs to be done under each category. And that's where our recommendations of whether we are satisfied, we think, you know, it should be done in a distributed manner, we need a new body, et cetera, comments can start coming. Last one even, role of stakeholders. I think from issues, therefore, the conversion into the real elements of our mandate would that way be possible. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. Chris Disspain. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Thank you. So thanks for asking about what we should do with this document. And I'd hate to see all this hard work go to waste. I think we should decide to move on, the way forward with this. And maybe the way forward is for a small group, sub working group if you'd like, to take this and move it down the line over the next few weeks. I wanted to support Virat's very clear point about a number of these issues are not actually global issues; they're national issues. So as part of the process of going -- I think the next step is to go through and look at duplicates. I think that's really important because obviously there is a heap of those. And then I think the next step after that is to say: Is it actually an issue relevant to this working group? Because if it's not an international global issue or for that matter an Internet governance issue, then it can go into a separate category. And then I think we can start to look at rating them and doing what Parminder was talking about. But I'd like to suggest that we do agree to have a small working group take charge of this document. I appreciate that the two or three people that have done this work so far can't do it on their own and we continue to work on the document. Thanks. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Chris. As far as eliminating duplicates, I think this is doable and it is relatively simple. As far as evaluating the relevance of some questions, I have my doubts that in a small group we can do that. Probably as the issues which have been raised came from contributions asked by the working group itself in the questionnaire. So probably those who contributed have thought about the relevance of the issues. So I don't believe that a small group may like to judge whether this is relevant or not. So probably we have to be very cautious about that. I have nothing against, however, setting up such a small working body -- shall we call it a working party, using the ITU terminology -- to do a kind of reduction of the number of issues we have, retaining everything -- I'm just talking about the duplications. I can see Virat asking for the floor. Sorry, sorry. India, you asked for the floor? Oh, Brazil. Oh, my goodness. We are approaching lunch break. I'm sorry. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I have some comments that were already covered by others. But one thing that occurs to me that has just been said, Mr. Chair, that it is doable towards having a more workable document, to eliminate duplication. I think that might be something more easily done. Just by looking at the pages, I identified eight references to multilingualism, either with a single word or multilingualism including internationalized domain names. So maybe we can retain both. But at least if we eliminate six, I think this would be the case in regard to other issues. So we may come up with a document with over 100 may be but more workable. And in regard to the small working group that would be tasked to further elaborate on this, I think that's probably the most efficient way to go about it. But I would also think that we would need this group to be open to contributions because since we are dealing with a universe of issues, I think expertise and inputs would be needed from various parties that would not necessarily be in this working group. And the most -- of course, the most burdensome issue would be to fill in current activities and approaches. I think the real challenge would be in regard to this column to identify exactly what are the current arrangements or what is being done in that regard. And we don't need to identify what interventions we might propose or agree to recommend or at least to identify. So I think this -- I don't have any idea of the amount of work, but I think it might require some extension of time that I think if we can aim at having this by our next meeting, that would be, I think, maybe a big challenge enough for the working group to work around this. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. Probably you don't need my advice of how to eliminate duplicates. Probably a simple sort on the Column 2 of this issue list will do and it will help. And then we can proceed on that. So I can sense that to establish a small working party may be agreed upon by this group. So probably you would like to think about how you would like to establish this working party which will be naturally open to anyone who'd like to participate from this group. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. Quickly, first of all, we wish to place on record our sincere appreciation to our colleagues led by Marilyn for coming up with this list which, I guess, is largely based on the contributions that we have. I think it is a very good basis to start with, though there are duplications, and I'm sure there are a few things which we need to look at. At the same time, the recognition that we could have at this point in time is if there are more additions to be made by any of the members of the working group, you could, perhaps, set a particular time frame during the course of the day by which time then there is a more acceptable list of issues. I'm not saying everyone agrees to what's in here but at least if there are any new areas, which the small group or the larger group would look at it subsequently. And, again, with the clear provision that you could at any time if any member wants to add a new issue to be added, the flexibility exists. With that understanding starting to begin with, we have the issues settled to begin with. And the second step would be, I think, on the lines of categorization of these issues. The two approaches I think as we heard, one approach could be on the lines which we already have -- where we have mentioned in our contribution that the last working group on Internet governance did classify them into four categories. Perhaps if that is one basis or possibility, yeah, if you want to add one more -- there are four listed here. One can be there. And, thereafter, the other suggestion was to look at just what Parminder has summarized based on what earlier I think were his discussions with Marilyn. So perhaps that initial kind of determination could be made in the larger group on categorization. And then the smaller group would be tasked with the responsibility to place them in different groups and then thereafter come in the larger group to see the next steps. I think that could be perhaps a logical way to go about as we see it. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. I think this is a good way of moving forward. I think the voluntary task force was looking at the contributions, took the input from the contributions but nothing prevents us to give additional items. However, I caution ourselves as far as the extent of expanding. We have constraints, meaning that we have to come up with recommendations according to a mandate for the next session of the CSTD which would be May. That is, we have to finish our work by end of February, beginning of March. We have to be aware, also, we shall do our best but it is not going to perfect. We have to make some compromises. So there's always room for improvement, I understand. There's always a possibility of taking up new things, but I caution you to be very, very careful how we are going to proceed. As for the categories you suggested, I think this is a good way forward. It is the bigger group, that is the whole working group, which may establish the categories. And probably the working party we are going to create can work on the basis of that; that is, eliminating duplication and putting the issues into the categories or putting categories to the issues, whatever way you would like to put it. Any other intervention? Virat? >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So just trying to consolidate some of the points and clarifying them. So the step one, I suppose, we're moving towards clearing the duplicates because we've got to come down from this list of 460. Step two, I think a determination would have to be made about whether the issues that have been mentioned here fall under the overall ambit of Internet governance and lend themselves to the dialogue on enhanced cooperation. That's a key threshold through which the issues must enter the door for consideration for this group and its mandate. The third would be whether these are national governments and domestic issues or whether they lend themselves to a global dialogue and a global discussion or policy making as some of my colleagues have called it. The fourth step would be to classify them as -- I think the Indian delegate mentioned about the working group on IGF improvements. But I suppose it's WGIG that he might be mentioning. The four classifications are in the WGIG document. I suppose it is that document, unless I'm wrong. Then there is the WGIG document versus the formula that has just been sort of offered by Parminder here. And the last would then be to sort of qualify it as whether there is an existing home, whether the existing home or mechanism is doing sufficient work, and whether there is nothing currently available and, therefore, something needs to be found on a way to handle it. It could be about five steps. I would say one -- I would just make one submission that whatever the smaller group does should be submitted on a no-judgment basis as a preliminary report to the entire group so that they're able to requalify an issue if they believe that needs to be mentioned separately and doesn't fall under the duplication because the smaller group, as you have mentioned, may not be sort of entirely authorized to strike off an issue as already exists. So I think we should provide that, maybe a week or a ten-day opportunity, to everybody to look at that list in case they absolutely insist that their issue has not been included. And that would be immediately after step one, which is when we clear out duplicates. So I submit a five-stage process could be followed and the Brazilian Ambassador's point that we should have this by the next meeting so we could have a sensible sort of time period in which we can conclude this exercise. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I think we are getting there. If there's no one from the group who'd like to take the floor, I would call on the observer. >>LEA KASPAR: Thank you, Chair. Lea Kaspar for Global Partners. I was one of the people working on the document. And I just wanted to say that perhaps it might be helpful to note that if the group would find this useful, we can just delete the duplicates today and have that ready by tomorrow so we can just go on to the second step as was noted now. So just I want to offer my time to do that if the group would find it useful. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Definitely I find it useful if you deleted the duplicates. As for the continuation of the work, I would like to think about how we are going to proceed. It's very tempting to work on this document. However, we shouldn't lose sight of our main task. So what I suggest now to have our lunch break and let's discuss it after lunch, consider what we are going to do and how we are going to do. Before breaking for lunch, Joy wanted to take the floor. Joy? >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize for keeping people from their well-deserved lunch break. Just one suggestion to assist the smaller working group. I notice that a number of people offered to assist in preparing the document, and there are one or two people who are indicating they might like to also contribute to this task. And I am just wanting to make sure that would be possible, for example, Anja Kovacs from (indiscernible) Project, who wishes to assist. And if there are any others, I think that would be a useful contribution. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. I'm going to consider it. Thank you. And now I think we are going to break for lunch and we come back at 3:00. Thank you. [ Lunch break ] [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good afternoon, welcome back. You look fresh. You had a nice lunch and the weather is beautiful outside. I imagine you would have liked to walk down to the lake. Can I ask you to take your seats, please? Shall I sing something? [ Speaking non-English language ] [ Laughter ] Okay, I would like to start now. I would like to the Swiss delegation to take their seat. Thank you. Okay. So before lunch break there were a lot of things going on. First of all, we discussed the questions in Group 4. We had a very, very good discussion on that. I'm really happy to have all of these ideas confronted. And we had the short presentation of a very good paper containing a few issues, if I'm not mistaken there are over 480 issues. And we agreed that there would be additional work done on this paper and eliminate duplicates. I was promised to have this paper by tomorrow and eventually tomorrow morning we may start some kind of relatively short discussion on this paper. What I suggest now to do is to attack the questions in Group 5. And I hope to finish it by 6:00. Leisurely we're going to take a coffee break at around half past 5:00. There's one thing I want to ask you if you have any comments on the discussions we had this morning or any observation concerning the way we are proceeding. If there are no comments, I would like to add once again that my target is to start drafting some recommendations tomorrow. There are a lot of issues which I -- I think that we may agree on, there would be a consensus, or close to consensus, and I want to repeat that this is a drafting exercise. It is not a final recommendation. We are just drafting something we can build on for the next meeting. But I find it extremely important that the -- at the end of this meeting we already have some things to build on for the next meeting, which I still don't know and it very much depends on you, how you feel it. It may be one or two meetings next year. I'm inclined to think that we may need to have two meetings, but it's up to you to decide. Okay. So I suggest to go into the Group 5 and look through the questions pertaining to this group. I -- as usual, I'll give you about five minutes to go through and to concentrate and I'm expecting your comments after that. [ Break ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. So I think you had some time to review the questions in the Group 5 which is about barriers for participation and enhanced cooperation which is very close to what's been discussed previously. So I invite you to give your comments. So who would like to take the floor first? Yes, Grace. >>GRACE GITHAIGA: I would like to just articulate some of the points that APC had raised but then, you know, they say they are the reflections of -- the comments are not reflected. And I just want to say some of them that in the barriers they highlight the absence of common principles for Internet governance at substantive and procedural levels. There's also not even a common understanding what the Internet is from an economic or legal perspective. The second barrier is the geopolitical arrangements among states, and interventions by states and global policy processes appear to be aimed at protecting the specific business or political interests rather than reflect a broader mandate from all their citizens. There's also an equal distribution of power among governments in global Internet governance basis. Some are simply more powerful than others. And often positions are shaped by this powerful configurations rather than by a desire to achieve the best possible public interest outcomes. There's also limited financial resources, time, capacity, and knowledge operate as barriers for the participation of the Internet governance ecosystem by civil society, by small- and medium-sized business, and governments from developing countries. And then, of course, there's also the barrier of diversity, different political and cultural backgrounds and traditions, different understandings about the role of governments and different approaches by governments to inclusive policy processes. In terms of actions required, one of the main things is that there needs to be more work with marginalized communities for us to develop local content in all languages that meets the needs and tells the stories of these marginalized communities. In terms of how EC can address issues to a broader socioeconomic development, one of the key factors is that it should ensure that stakeholders from all sectors reach agreement on a common vision and go through ICT support and socioeconomic development and by respecting that they can contribute to meeting these goals. It is also important to manage conflicts of interests and put human rights and public interests first. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Grace. Any other comments? Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Just on the (indiscernible) of the group, since nobody else is commenting, I will talk to keep the discussion rolling. Two small points. One is that it was pointed out earlier, I think by the Indian delegation, that though we are talking about participation discretion is linked to the question of mechanisms because many of us think the basic barrier is a fact that there is no peer mechanism on which policymaking development takes place and that itself is a barrier. And if we have a mechanism, then you will have different kind of barriers. But a big barrier right now is an absence of a mechanism. Second, because there are a couple of issues, a couple of questions under this set like the affordability question. In an effort to what a lot of you have said, that one of the (indiscernible) which should be applied to the issues is whether their relevant to our mandate, which is international public policymaking, and whether they are national level issues. So I would think that in our discussion we should focus on the international public policy aspects. I do think even access and local content may have an international aspect, but we as a mandate of the group are discussing international public policy issues and that (indiscernible) should be applied when we get into these questions to make the most productive use of our time. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. I think I just want to comment on your last point, which I think is a valid point. We have formulated questions, we have received the input, and that is part of our mandate. But it's up to us to decide upon whatever we take on board and whatever we think is not so relevant to our mandate. And we can naturally contribute ourselves. So we ask the (indiscernible) to contribute in forms of recommendations based on the inputs we have. But naturally, we can -- we should do our homework. So any other comments? Jimson, thank you. >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you very much, Distinguished Chair. When it comes to Baher (phonetic), I just look back that now I'm involved and there are still many stakeholders that still need to be involved in the process. Thus far. And one of, I think, the finest new job (indiscernible) is gap in internal processes, even at the national level. Also regional level and then international level. There's no doubt about that. When it comes to national level I can recall when we are talking about dot NG Nigeria there were a lot of issues. There was no understanding among the stakeholders, but until the government took the leadership role and brought in everybody, that was when there was peace, there was harmony. We are now working together. I now have the privilege of being a part of ICANN, basically playing at least some very -- I appreciate the leadership there. Some very neutral positions there, roles there. And that is business. The Government Advisory Committee too, at least from my experience from African perspective, awareness is a challenge because many government are not even aware that it could be involved in decision-making when it comes to the critical Internet, you know, resources. Talking about the ccTLD and the new gTLD and even the other issues that (indiscernible). But also this was a lot of language, you know. We have language barrier. Like Africa with more than 4,000 languages and 3,000 -- more than 3,000 ethnic groups, so it was also challenges. Before you get information to the grass-roots it takes a little while. So more information, the challenge of submitting information, and also bringing people together. And also funding to do this campaign. I think that we also see an important job to do here, to develop some good funding to proper awareness, even down to the grass root. Because they are not aware, they don't know what they need to do, you know. And this is very, very important. Then at the international level, well, it's an evolution. The process is ongoing. And I'm optimistic that by the time we're able to use the bottom-up approach we need to be clear what we need to do at the international level. But basically, the challenge is getting the home together. They say charity begins at home. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson. One comment I can make is about the GAC and the ICANN, as far as I know, right, there are about 120-plus governments who are members of the Advisory Committee, Governmental Advisory Committee, but you have a point here that naturally out of this 120-plus countries, only about 60-plus who are actively participating or physically participating in the meetings. But I think there is a progress there as well. And all the points you pointed out are extremely variable and we should concentrate on these points. Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Something that Jimson said really sparked -- and Grace's comments really sparked my interest in commenting on the aspect of informed awareness. And informed participation and how much more we need to do to explain the relevance of Internet governance to the decisions that affect the use and the usability and the availability of the Internet and the online world. We often use the word "internet" as a code word when we actually probably mean the World Wide Web, social networks, all of the rich sources of stored data as well as the Internet which connects those together. And I think one thing when we start thinking about where's work being done, we may actually find ourselves needing to parse that a little bit more to think about whether we're talking about online content or we're talking about transport. But in terms of thinking about awareness, I think explaining in more citizen-friendly language what we would say in business is layman's language, but citizen-friendly language what is going on in Internet governance that is a policy or a decision that may affect legislation or it may affect a regulatory change or it may affect an initiative that your government is going to be taking. If citizens are reading in the local media or seeing -- I was privileged to be invited to speak at AfICTS summit in July in Lagos and spent a fair amount of time talking to the Nigerian press about what Internet governance is and why it matters on a global basis. Because they were looking at it -- they were very interested in why AfICTA would be engaging in global activities as well as -- and why they would be engaging and working with the Nigerian government to focus on policies that the Nigerian government was addressing. So I'd like to put my vote with, I think, both Grace and Jimson and others about the need for us to think about the importance of lack of awareness as a major barrier to how stakeholders can learn about the activities and how they can participate. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. Raising awareness is the expression I hear most. Saudi Arabia. Majed. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a -- a very good and important question in regards to the barriers, for all stakeholders to fully participate in their respective roles in global Internet governance. Among the various stakeholders groups identified in Tunis Agenda, we believe that it's only the governments who are unable to participate in their role in Internet governance. As I stated earlier, there is no effective mechanisms for them to undertake that role, which is the development of international Internet-related public policy in consultation with all stakeholders. Enhanced cooperation was intended to provide this mechanism and the process toward the implementation of enhanced cooperation was to begin by first quarter of 2006. However, governments supporting implementation of the WSIS outcomes have reached the point of creating this group and its mandate as it's stated in the UNGA resolution. The purpose is to make recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate of the WSIS regarding enhanced cooperation as contained in the Tunis Agenda. In regards to the other questions, how can enhanced cooperation address the issues toward global social and economical -- or economic development, bring us back to -- I mean, the creation of this mechanism -- and this relates to Question 6 is how to implement enhanced cooperation. We proposed that to establish a body, regardless it's a new body or under the U.N. system umbrella, and the enhanced cooperation body is a body and its related process mandate to (indiscernible) international public policy pertaining to the Internet. The processes will address the details of how issues are introduced, studied in consultation with all stakeholders, debated, agreed, disseminated, adopted, and implemented. But the first is to establish the body. Or to provide the platform for the government. As I stated, in the U.N. family funding, Secretariat support, high-level processes, these details will follow. But first we have to provide this platform. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Virat, please. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chairman, just a clarification. There are four questions here. Are we going one by one or can we go for all? How do you want to proceed? >>CHAIR MAJOR: As you wish. I would like to take the whole group together, and if you want to spec -- treat questions specifically, feel free to do it. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question I wanted to remind myself, Mr. Chairman, is about barriers that remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in the representative roles in global Internet governance. This is not specifically about enhanced cooperation. So I just want to be sure that we sort of attack that question. And I would argue, based on the comments that have been received from 60-odd bodies, that it would seem that governments and business have most access to information, activities, and events related to Internet governance. I would also argue, based on the evidence here, that the technical communities have perhaps the second best access and the civil society and academia easily the least access. I would quote, with your permission, from the submissions of Anja Kovacs for the project director for Internet Democracy who seeks distributed Internet governance process where she lists two specific reasons why civil society specifically is unable to participate. The first being procedural matter where much of the events that is organized are very last-minute and in developing countries and so information, availability, et cetera, is a challenge for civil societies, except those who are the regular players in this arena. The second that she lists here, and correctly so, and this seems to be affecting more than just the civil society, is the issue of funding. Since we have not explored technology to its fullest extent, I think the point of funding is coming in the way of making our processes multistakeholder and certainly becoming one of the most significant barriers that are listed here. I would also quote from the inputs provided by the United States where they have proposed solutions, including outline clear modalities with the default being the civil society can attend and participate on an equal footing with other stakeholders, provide advance notice -- meetings for notice -- notices for meetings, make available travel fellowships, publish all relevant material with no passwords, et cetera, and more participation. So I think excellent suggestions here from the inputs which we've included which I urge that the house consider as we respond to this question. I now turn to the second question in the group of four which relates to how can enhanced cooperation address the key issues towards global social and economic development and here I quote from the India submission from the government -- sorry, it's a submission from another civil society from India, SFLC, which talks about the fact that infrastructure can play a major role in bridging this divide and any discussion or decision that allows for all stakeholders to act together in a covenant manner nationally will then become an example for what can be done globally. I think sort of evidence has been provided here. On the third question that we're dealing with relating to what actions are needed to promote effective participation of all marginalized people in the global information society I again turn to the government of India -- sorry, the Indian submission by SFLC which states, and I quote, "that an established need to identify areas where further efforts and resources need to be pooled for the marginalized community. Firstly, affordable access to information and communications technology, digital literacy, for the rural poor and other marginalized groups, including women and children, should be assured." Much of what has been spoken by my colleague Jim here. And I think a very special effort. But this, to a very large extent, is about providing physical access and multilingualism. In a country like India, for example, we have 22 recognized languages. There's a dialect almost every 20 kilometers and hundreds of mother tongues. The rupee note carries 15 different scripts of how the rupee can be mentioned. So it's -- you know, we're rich in diversity in that sense. And so if it was taken as a microcosm of what the issue is globally, I think we have a good example to start. I come to the last question, with your permission, Mr. Chair, and what are the key issues to be addressed to promote affordability of Internet in particular developing countries and the least-developing countries, and here again, the multistakeholder role of all the parties is critical. Private sector, as we have often spoken about for the last day and a half about investment, innovation, technology, human resources, infrastructure, et cetera, capital, the technical community, which is working very hard across the world to lower the cost of access, 85 to 90% of the remaining world, 60% of the unconnected world will connect on mobile devices. Prices of mobile devices are being dropped sharply across the world with innovation and help from the technical community, so they have a significant role also to stretch the limits of spectrum and what it can do with regards to data because the facility that provides with regards to voice are quite different than data and online access, civil society which drives transparency, which drives accountability, and strives for lower cost. So if you look at this holistically, even in this role of providing access to developing countries and least developed countries, each one of them has a role. I will close by saying that the government in India, just as an example, has made a decision about two years ago to transform a universal service obligation fund which was collected from a 5% of every mobile bill that was paid by a mobile subscriber and was originally reserved for connecting rural India has been changed and the law has been changed with an agreement of all parties to the parliament. And now $4.5 billion are being deployed to build a national fiberoptic network that will soon connect 250,000 villages purely for online access for the most part. So this is a remarkable case where consumers using mobile phones have deposited money in an account which is now being used to provide rural access. And so each one of those stakeholders I have just highlighted have a role in providing access especially with developed and underdeveloped countries. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Two comments. I wouldn't call India a microcosm with 1 billion plus people. The second comment is when you mentioned "spectrum," did you mean frequency spectrum? >>INDIA: Yes. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chair. Well, we -- I would like to start with saying that we do think that there are barriers left that we have to deal with when it comes to participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance. And some of them have already been touched upon like the financial restraints, lack of awareness and not at least the issue of language, multilingualism. Those are definitely restraints that affect participation of all stakeholders, I would say, but maybe particularly civil society, academia and technical community. We also think that another barrier is the lack of policy transparency that still exists on many levels, both nationally and internationally. There is often a lack of consultation with stakeholders before new policy is put in place, legislation is put in place. And that is definitely a challenge for many stakeholders. In the international arena, we see this as well. Just to take an example, documentation in some international organizations like the ITU, for instance, is only for members. My government has certainly pushed this issue on many occasions, that we want to increase access to relevant documentation to all stakeholders. So that is -- that is another issue. I think when we're looking at Question 12 about marginalized people and how marginalized people can be more -- can participate more in the global information society, we think that that is part of much broader issues, empowerment issues. For example, we have the question of gender equality which is very important. We know that women today are to a lesser extent users of Internet, for instance. So I think that's part of a broader issue of trying to empower citizens and empower stakeholders. When it comes to the issue of affordability, we certainly think that it's very important to create an enabling business environment through deregulation, predictable business environment and definitely fostering competition because we know from experience that competition brings down prices. So we hope that we can work on some of the -- some recommendations that points in that direction. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. I think we are on the right track. We are working towards recommendations. I can see Baher. You wanted to take the floor? >>BAHER ESMAT: Thank you, Chair. I'm Baher Esmat. I'm with ICANN. So I echo the views of colleagues about -- on the question of barriers, about raising awareness and funding as key barriers for participation in Internet governance, particularly from developing countries. I also echo the views about language, language barriers. Marilyn made a valid point about making information available in laymen language for the broader participation. One of the -- one other related issue we noticed in our engagement at ICANN and developing countries is the relevance of the issue itself. And it was mentioned by the distinguished delegate from Brazil, you know, the example of, you know, the session at the IGF about developing issues and, you know, the new gTLD issue and whether it's relevant or not. So the relevance of the agenda itself is quite an issue. And that's why I'm not in agreement with the view that the lack of a mechanism or the lack of mechanisms is the main barrier because oftentimes we have mechanisms in place. But the issue is more about whether the issues and discussions are relevant or not. At the same time, there are key governance issues for developing countries that are mainly national issues. They need to be addressed mainly at national issues like access. Many of the contributions to the questionnaire recognized that access remains to be a key issue for developing countries. And I would say that 99% of policy discussions about access, whether in terms of broadband access or availability of content in local languages, all these policies are more relevant to the national sort of governance dialogue. So I think it's more -- the other point I want to raise is, again, in relation to access and in relation to the question about the social and economic aspects of enhanced cooperation. So there was the study of OECD, ISOC and UNESCO, I think, which identified one key fact about the correlation between the development of the infrastructure and the availability of local content. And, again, this is something that is very challenging for developing countries. And this is something that needs to be addressed more at national levels. And if we're talking about mechanisms to address these issues, then we have to go back and, you know, using the term that many people use "that Internet governance starts at home." So I'm more towards, you know, wanting to see more discussion or more listing of issues in relation to barriers and all this. And I think the exercise we're going to do shortly will identify whether those issues are relevant to the global agenda or the national agenda or elsewhere. So I'll stop there. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Baher. Well, for the time being, we have heard very interesting contributions. Some of them were controversial -- I mean, contradictory to each other. But it just reflects the complexity of the task which is ahead of us. So I wonder if you would like to comment on this group of questions about the barriers, local content? I turn to observers, if you have any comments. Well, in that case, I think we have concluded the first round. We have gone through all the questions. We have given our comments, and we have had a rich discussion about all these issues. So what is ahead of us is on one hand to formulate recommendations. On the other hand, we'd like to revisit the document which was offered to us by the voluntary task force and we were promised to have it by tomorrow. So, I'm reminded that Joy would like to take the floor. Joy, the floor is yours. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. Thank you for checking in. Can you hear me? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, very well. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. I just wanted to comment on the barriers to participation and to emphasize the barriers for particular groups that are listed in some of the submissions. And I'm quite concerned with some of the submissions in front of us. I'm a little concerned that some input seems to be repeating the (indiscernible) that we focused on, a particular concern about whether a (indiscernible) is needed or not. And I think that's doing a disservice to the hard work of submissions who have been active and taken submissions seriously. And I would ask you to be reminded about that and to focus particular on the barriers of civil society from developing countries and particularly those who access -- have a really significant issue and for those half of the world's population who do not even have access. In particular, I am also concerned about the barriers for women and particularly for women's participation in Internet governance. And this is the subject of a working group recommendation to the Human Rights Council. And I would ask the secretariat perhaps to consolidate a list of recommendations in relation to participation from some of the other U.N. bodies. I think that would be a useful input, if the working group could (indiscernible) as part of the recommendation acknowledge the other mechanisms and statements within Internet governance that have reached these barriers and made recommendations and actions on them. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. I believe in our discussions we tried to touch upon all the submissions we received. And we provided the kind of summary, which to my best knowledge, tried to really encompass all the relevant points and making an attempt not to forget about any of the contributions. In the group itself, I think there are representatives of U.N. bodies. And as the meeting is open, there is nothing to prevent other U.N. bodies to follow what we are doing here. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have listened with good interest to the interventions in regards to the barriers and to the understanding of how are we going to approach forward from this group. However, Mr. Chairman, as the Saudi government, we came to this meeting and we have a mandate from the UNGA resolution. And when we say "enhanced cooperation," it has to be as referenced in the Tunis Agenda. And we are coming from paragraph 69 that there's a need for enhanced cooperation in the future to enable governments. And being as a government, we are here to try to accomplish or start this mandate in regards to the enhanced cooperation and able governments to develop international public policy issues. Also, our references in regards to -- I have listened to the IGF dialogue and the enhancement and raise awareness of these, and we support this but in the same time, there should be in parallel the enhanced cooperation. And I'm also referring to UNGA resolutions that the two -- the IGF and enhanced cooperation is two distinct processes. The IGF is to provide the platform for all stakeholders to discuss dialogue, and the enhanced cooperation for governments is to provide the platform for governments to undertake their role. But I'm trying to speak here and try not to use the word "enhanced cooperation" or "IGF." I will try to tackle the issue as it's facing the global as a problem. I heard that there's -- I believe that the existing processes are adequate and there is no need for governments to assume a larger role in Internet governance. However, last night, my colleague and I were thinking of various issues on the Internet and how the current mechanisms are simply not able to handle them adequately. So maybe when giving an example, we will be more clear. And since I'm speaking in English, excuse me for my diplomacy. I would rather we have this in all six languages, but I will do my best. Everyone is familiar, for example, with the prevalence of botnets, phishing, malware, viruses, identity theft, online fraud and sadly child pornography. Who in this room has not received numerous spam messages containing an infected attachment or asking for the disclosure of personal identity information? Recently Saudi Arabia was the target of denial of service attacks against two of our largest companies in the petroleum industry, Saudi Aramco and Sabic. There are many more prominent examples around the world. Countries also face major difficulties dealing with the practices which is dangerous or illegal. Most content providers are responsive to the hosts of their home base country. The governments of these countries will intervene with the content providers when they believe that content is inappropriate or unlawful according to their laws or norms. But those governments are generally unhelpful when asked to intervene with content providers on behalf of other countries. A recent example for Saudi and many other Muslim countries was the YouTube video defaming the Prophet Muhammad based upon him. Can someone tell me how existing mechanisms will solve the problem when someone in Saudi Arabia or any other countries loses their life savings in an Internet scam from another country or a major oil exporter has their operation shut down or major structure is turned off or government services are destructed or bank records are stolen? Can someone tell me how the private sector, civil society, standard bodies, academia, can possibly handle these issues alone? Of course not. The only chance for success is the active participation of governments and their full role developing and implementing international cooperation and public policy in full consultation with all stakeholders. We also have heard about the equal footing in regards to the decision-making policy, equivalent to the governments. It is important to realize the governments are the bodies who have obligations to their citizens, to protect them from harm and to establish and maintain their rights both offline and online. No other stakeholder and group can perform this role in an unbiased manner. Unfortunately, because if they are at the governments in the multistakeholder Internet governance model and the Tunis Agenda has not been implemented, many countries cannot adequately benefit from the Internet or help their citizens solve the issues they are facing online. In addition, some governments also cannot protect their rights as states when it touches the sovereignty of the states. There's an entity or one entity has tremendous advantage of being able to enforce its low simply because it controls or manages or has access to so much of Internet infrastructure but also great influence over content providers operating within its border and exercises influence when it suits its purposes. But it shows no willingness to extend the influence when governments requested to court content be considered insensitive or is morally offensive. What we want is the following. International cooperation agreements are necessary and important and have proved to work well and to the benefit of all in the field of ICT. Good examples are frequency interference, spectrum harmonization, satellite orbits and compatible numbering. Any government when presented with a claim of cross-border frequency interference, for example, will investigate and take action to correct the problem irrespective of what entity in its jurisdictions is causing the problem. This could not happen without the direct involvement of governments. No other stakeholders' group could do it or would even want to do it. The same problems face all governments when trying to provide the benefits of the Internet to their citizens while protecting them and at the same time maintaining stability and interoperability of the Internet. The protection of citizens is the mandate of the governments. No other stakeholders group can do it, and most have no interest in doing it. The current governance mechanisms do not and cannot successfully address most of the critical problems and issues within the Internet. Governments should be able to protect their people and their entities in their territories both online and offline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. Any other comments? If not, I think this is the proper time to break for coffee. And then I would recommend you to come back at :35, 4:35. Thank you. [ Break ] [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Welcome back. May I ask you to take your seats, please? Thank you. Before the coffee break we discussed Group Number 5 and more general questions, and I think we have come to the end of discussing the responses based on the inputs to the questionnaire. We have gone through all the questions and it is my feeling that there's a sense of understanding, we understand each other, we know what -- what are the concerns of some of us. On a more positive note, I can sense some kind of consensus on some issues. So I would like to concentrate on those where we have the hope to achieve consensus. We don't really have to agree on everything. We don't really have to have all parties agree on everything. We may have dissenting voices. We have to keep in mind that we are formulating recommendations. It's not a resolution. Just recommendations. And we try to fulfill the mandate we have been given by the U.N. General Assembly. So right now I suggest to you to start the exercise of drafting. It will be a process. We are not going to draft, right now, the final text. I have asked the Secretariat to take the notes, your suggested text, and you can see it on the screen where our captioning will be available on the other screen. I'm sorry for those of you who are -- who have your back to this screen, and some of you who are more fortunate can see both. At this time I would like to concentrate on questions where I sensed a common understanding, and I think that was Group 4 and Group 5. So what I really want to do, the structure of the recommendations, I would follow the groupings we have been following during the two days up to now. So we may like to put them -- the groups and start by Group 4, that is questions of developing countries, and I'm expecting you to provide some text, what are the recommendations you think should come to the document we are going to provide for the CSTD next May. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair, and I think we have come to the perhaps the very important task which is of preparing a report of recommendations, a report with recommendations. I think it's -- while the approach that you proposed which is to take those areas where we seem to have a broad consensus and thereby focus on that and leaving those where we feel that there are -- obviously there's still not convergence of views at a later stage, I think we have some reservations on this approach. I'll explain why. Firstly, we all agree there needs to be critical discussion within the U.N. fora. We tend to leave the -- we tend to address all issues to start with and thereafter leave the final decision on those difficult areas to the last day. Taking that approach I think is sometimes useful because you tend to see that -- well, unless there's a certain amount of pressure that has been brought on purely on the issue of time, there is no -- no serious effort by the delegations to sort of arrive at a consensus. But having said that, in the current approach that we intend to follow, one -- there are issues which are difficult ones, we acknowledge and we have seen the diversity of views that are there, particularly on Group 2 and 3. Completely leaving that to a later date might not be an appropriate way to go about because these differences persist in the last day. Number one. Number two, there are decisions which are not to be made here. They all require certain inputs from the capitals and require certain kind of consensus building not -- outside the room, as I said. So my suggestion would be, Chair, would -- should we not start from the groups that we have prepared from the beginning and see whether there could be some consensus in terms of not necessarily the entire text but certainly on preparing some kind of, you know, (indiscernible) kind of language which would accommodate perhaps the idea that we intend to follow. Because at the end of today -- because we already -- two days of our discussions are almost getting over, and on the third day we have -- unless we have something to take back to the capital at the end of this working group meeting, it might be difficult to get decisions during the next -- and which will be the last meeting for all of us. So bearing that in mind, because if you have those issues which are difficult and they're presented on the last day of the meeting of the last session of the working group, I think we would not be in a position to mitigate some instructions from the capitals and thereby we would perhaps end up not making recommendations. Which is not -- which is a sad story. So I think as sometimes they say let's catch the bull by its horn and then see whether we can stand in front of it or we just run away from it. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Mr. Reddy. I am ready to consider your suggestion. The reason I am suggesting the approach that what I suggested is to build on something, and that is your approach as well. You want to have something to build on. You are suggesting to at least to have some (indiscernible) on the different groups, that you can take back to capital, which is also a viable solution. But we have to take also into account that during our discussions there was an effort made to identify issues and we have come up with 480-plus issues, which I don't think we can manage here, right now. Even if they are been downsized to 150, we can't manage. So I am not against making (indiscernible) and start with this text, but I can also see the danger of in case we don't agree on some text now, then all our future meeting or meetings -- because I'm not very sure that we will have only one meeting. It very much depends on you and the results we achieve during the one hour we have now and tomorrow, the whole day. So I'm just offering one option. I take your option, but I'm also wondering how others feel about it. Chris, please. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Thank you. I'm -- I find myself slightly confused. I -- I thought we had undertaken -- we're undertaking a mapping exercise where we've got some issues listed and someone I believe is going through them and looking at duplicates and we're supposed to be having an exercise where we see what we end up with and see if they can go through a test as to whether they apply. So how can we be working on resolutions until we've at least figured out what we're talking about? I may have misunderstood, but it struck me that we were trying to work on a mapping exercise. I'm lost. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Chris, I would like to make it clear to you we are not working on resolution. We are working on recommendation. Now, the -- it's not but it's -- it's -- it's a very important distinction. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I appreciate that. Sorry. >>CHAIR MAJOR: And I've made clear that probably the mapping exercise is being done -- well, the technical part to downsize it will be done by tomorrow and we may have a dry run on the basis which has been suggested, the five-step approach on some questions. But I also made it clear that we are not going to continue it here because some delegations or many delegations are not in the position of going through this. So they would like to take it back to capital. And I also made it clear that I intended to have some kind of draft recommendations on some issues which we may have consensus on. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. From our perspective, we think that it would be beneficial for the group to start with the two last groups because we have the same sense as you do, Chairman, that that's probably the areas where we have the biggest chance of, at this stage, reaching consensus on some recommendations. And I think it would be to the benefit of the whole group and contribute to building trust in the group if we can actually move forward with some recommendations since we're already at this stage. And I think also that we can benefit -- and I have at least benefited from the discussions we have had here these two days, and I'll bring that back to capital and to stakeholders back home and maybe work a little bit back home on potential thinking around recommendations on the more difficult issues. And I think we can also utilize the time that we have from now to the next meeting to discuss with each other also in different constellations on those more difficult issues so that we can come better informed and to the next meeting and start working on some of the more difficult issues by then. And also in relation to the mapping exercise, I think the mapping is very important and our sense is that it especially benefits the questions in Group 1 and Group 2, maybe Group 3 and therefore, we think that we can do things in parallel. We can do the mapping exercise to help us with moving forward on those issues in Group 1, 2, and 3, and at the same time we can actually start to work on recommendations for Group 4 and 5 where we have more concerns. And so we agree with your approach. We think that that would help us build confidence in the group and maybe then that we would -- we can use when we approach those more difficult issues at a later stage. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Actually, Chair, both that Constance and Phil had their -- and also Parminder so I will just wait my turn. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Parminder? >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. Two set of issues trying to comment on how we are working and how possibly we can give a productive outcome at the end of the whole period of our working group. One is about our express mandate, and the other is about expectations of the world from us. And about the express mandate, first, and as the Chair reminded us oftentimes that there is a mandate, and let's stick to that. And the mandate is to examine the Tunis Agenda's mandate of enhanced cooperation and to give recommendations to fully operationalize it. Now, that's the mandate. If we have to do something on the mandate, we have to go to the Tunis Agenda and do a search of the word "enhanced cooperation" and read each section, 68 and 69. Yeah. 68 first. No, no, 68, 69 and then 70 and 71. And it says that there is enhanced cooperation which is defined as the issue of international public policy issues. Whoever has to do it, I'm reading the question out because that may be contention, equal footing of the governments or not or all stakeholders. But it is very clear. We need to deal with international public policy issues related to the Internet. There's clear pointing to the fact that there are international public policy issues to be dealt with. They are important. And, obviously, that's why you find mention of the words in the document. And they need to be dealt with. We need to figure out how to deal with them and that's the principle mandate. The question of whether developing countries participate in that -- and "that" is not known yet -- or what are the barriers of participation, otherwise to "that" does only come after we have discussed to some length what is "it" we are talking about, how are we going to address international public policy issues, multistakeholder, multilateral, only private sector, whatever. But that comes before we talk about the role of developing countries or various participation because I can't talk about the role of developing countries -- in what? In keeping their citizens happy? In warfare? What? It is about their responsibilities in international public policy issues. And it if that is not spoken, I don't see how 4 and 5 can be spoken. And to speak about 4 and 5, it anticipates that there is an existing mechanism in some ways which is doubted by many people here, not a consensus but some people doubt it. So I don't see how -- till we deal to some extent, whatever level we can reach a consensus, with the issue of mechanism, we discuss the role of developing countries in that mechanism because I don't see 4 and 5 as role of developing countries -- I'm repeating myself -- in just something but in that particular mechanism, whether it exists or not and, again, barriers to participation in that particular thing which can be defined only by 2 and 3. The second part of my intervention is about a certain kind of disappointment with the fact that this group sits with a global responsibility to address questions which are bothering a lot of people everywhere. The newspapers are full of it. Stories are being written. People are discussing in their bedrooms. And we seem not directly addressing questions which people are bothered about. The U.N. working group is supposed to be addressing the world's problems. The world's problems are of many kinds. They are not just related to what has been called recent revelations but many other Internet-related issues, the consumer rights across borders, the cross-border data flows, Internet connectivity. Taxation, where does value accrue? And where does tax take place? Cybersecurity. There are huge issues that people are talking about, to see that those issues either do not exist or are being dealt with at the present is the core we need to address. After that, we address how to enhance the system by increasing participation of different people. So I think both ways we need to go to the meat of the issue, see where we can converge. There was a lot of work happening outside this room. ICANN goes to the President of a country, makes some offers. They say that we should hurry towards internationalization of oversight. Those words are not being mentioned inside the working group which has the global mandate through a legitimate global U.N. process to be looking at those questions. It is something, I think, which is not quite right when we are well past the halfway stage of this working group. I think we need to directly address these questions, find the views of the people, try to converge them as far as we can. But I think we cannot avoid those key issues to be dealt with first. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I think during the two days, it has been said many times that we have a mandate and we try to stick to this mandate. We have compiled a questionnaire. We have received inputs. We have discussed these inputs, reviewed them, and we have spent about two days reviewing and having some sense what are the main concerns. I have nothing against bringing on board new issues as I told you because we are really mandated to give our opinion as well. However, during the two-day discussion we had up till now, we have been discussing the inputs and some comments we have made on that. So it was my understanding that the group would like to work in this way. And I repeated many times that we are going to work in this way and I had no objection to that. So I reiterate my proposal to work the way I suggested. But I'm ready to listen to other voices. Phil? >>PHIL RUSHTON: I think listening to discussion thus far in your proposal, Chair, has been quite interesting. In the two days that we've sat here, I think it has been recognized that since the agreement of the output of WSIS, the world has moved on. We are more than halfway through what we think is our term of activity. And even in recent weeks, there has been activity that we couldn't have perceived six months ago being of interest to us in the discussions. If we look at the mandate which says "to examine the mandate of the WSIS regarding enhanced cooperation," there are some things that I think we have talked around as the distinguished delegate from Sweden suggested, which is there are recognized barriers and issues around participation. And I think there is some value in looking at or trying to look at through the eyes of required activities to ensure that all voices, all stakeholders, are engaged. It is right to say that not all stakeholders are engaged. And we should work to ensure that our recommendations or at least one of the recommendations, I'm sure, address and endeavor to resolve those barriers. Will we completely resolve those barriers? I would like to think yes, but I suspect not. I think in taking it forward and looking at Groups 4 and 5 which are fairly wide areas, I do think applying some sort of mapping exercise to try to take elements of 4 and 5 to make sure that what we are recommending on specific issues are of value and can be seen to achieve consensus within the room. It is not to say that we do 4 and 5 here and then walk away from it, but I think it is a part to say we try and do one, one issue that we have some sort of agreement on is important, that we can try out the mapping mechanism. Does that work? Does that have to be changed? Have we got it right? One of the issues I think we are facing is we're trail blazing. We don't have a process. We are making it up as we go along almost. And I think while that's good and it proves that we're responsive to the needs, it takes time for us, I think, to come to some sort of agreement. So I think if we are looking at our mandate and looking at a way forward, I think taking a very specific approach to the areas where there seems to be consensus, trying to select an issue from those areas and seeing whether or not there's some value in taking those forward, I think, would be a useful way forward. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. While you have the floor, can you give me some concrete example how you think the way forward is in Group 4? Any concrete... >>PHIL RUSHTON: I think I would pick up on the debate that we had before coffee and I think specifically referenced by the delegate -- distinguished delegate from Sweden on access to all multistakeholders in this debate. I think Grace made a very useful intervention prior to coffee as to what the barriers were, and I think there's some activity there that we could look at to see whether or not we could make a recommendation going forward as to how we might address or suggest that those barriers be addressed. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. As far as I can see, this is very much along the line I suggested. Constance? >>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you, Chair. I would just like to support the point Phil made and the distinguished delegate from Sweden. I think Parminder raises a very critical point which is the global responsibility of this group which is to look at hard issues. And a lot of work went into trying to list these issues, including emerging difficult issues. And in terms of methodology, I would propose that we follow the path discussed before the coffee break and try to have a rigorous approach in looking at these issues. We could start with access. We could start with multistakeholder participation. And that exercise would naturally lead us to possible recommendations. Rushing to recommendations without having done this mapping exercise seems difficult from my perspective. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Constance. Saudi Arabia. Brazil? Brazil, okay. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you. Well -- sorry, I lost my notes. I'd like to say I see merit in the two approaches. I think we -- well, first of all, I fully agree with India in that the most central issues we should tackle are contained in Groups 1 and 2. Clearly, for example, the way Question Number 8 is drafted: What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda? This links directly to the mandate. And also when we asked: To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? So these are the core issues that are at the heart of our mandate. So clearly this -- if we have to dedicate -- if we have limited amount of time, this should clearly be the focus of our work. However, I also see merit in starting with Questions 4 and 5 in the spirit Sweden has mentioned to build confidence and establish models of parameters and also thinking that in the second stage we could benefit of the mapping exercise, a tool that would also enable us to tackle questions in Groups 1 and 2 more efficiently. So the Number 4 and 5 would be, let's say, the low-hanging fruit that we could go and have a more concrete outcome. But, however, this -- I don't think you can disassociate this with the time constraints we have. I think the most crucial issue -- and I don't feel there is clarity at this most whether we are going to have one or two meetings. If we are going to have two meetings, I think we can allow us the luxury of not engaging to Groups 1 and 2 now, allow us some more time to go about it in our next meeting but with the assurance that we will have opportunity for that. And I fully agree with India, that if we have just one more single meeting, it would be very difficult to tackle at the same meeting, to start dealing with different issues and at the end of the same meeting coming out with solutions. So maybe, Mr. Chair -- I don't know the appropriate moment. But I think this decision on how to go about it should be linked to the decision whether we'll have one or two meetings. I think that might provide some more clarity for all of us. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Very helpful. Really, really helpful. So before I give the floor to Saudi Arabia and then I can see Jimson, I would like to think about the possibility of having more than one meeting next year. I suggest us to have one meeting in January and one meeting in February. I leave it to you now. And let's listen to Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I understand the time constraint that we are facing for this very delicate job to come up with the recommendations. But we can have a recommendation, I believe, by this meeting, but is it going to relate to the mandate of the group or not? That's the core -- I mean, that's the importance, that the recommendation relates to the mandate of the group. And I would like to bring the attention that the Cluster 4 and 5, it has been answered based -- or after the questions that relates to how to implement enhanced cooperation and what are the mechanisms. And when we answered that, we got the input. Then we reach a consensus in regards to the role of the developing countries. So the core is to undertake Question 2 and 3 first. Then we will have, I mean, no difficulties going to 4 and 5. But we cannot talk about participation. Participation in what? The role of the developing countries in what? So it is very important to start with 2 and 3. And even if we are going to have two meetings, that as of to date puts us 50% of the work of the group even if we have two meetings. This is the second meeting. And we are approaching half or almost 2/3 of the second meeting. So it is very important to start with the core mandate to get the recommendations. Then it will be very easy to decide the role of the developing countries in the recommendations that we have and then how to enhance the participation in enhanced cooperation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. I think we had today discussions so we don't have to pretend that we haven't discussed these issues. And we don't have some kind of understanding what is on the table. So I believe that all of us have kind of an understanding what we are discussing. Jimson. >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you, Distinguished Chair, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. Please permit me to just make a few comments with regard to the issue at hand. Shortly before we went for tea break, there was an intervention by the distinguished representative from Saudi Arabia with regard to the role of government and the mandate as has been well articulated by Parminder and many others that have spoken. Well, from the business constituency, from the business and from developing countries, we do know clearly that government have a very clear role. Governments are the sovereign rule in the face of citizens. What we also are saying is that, yes, there is some dynamicism -- there is some dynamic evolution. Saw that while the government leads, it also leads with business and stakeholders so that we can all have the people together. I would say this. I also want to illuminate the fact that when we talk about rule of law, it's already agreed that rule of law offline is the same as rule of law in the online world. And as such, how has it been tackled in the offline world? I believe through a lot of collaboration, through a lot of bilateral agreements. A lot has been achieved. Even when it also drags into the online world, let me give you this illustration, something that happened in Nigeria not too long ago, maybe about four, five years back. There was a case of online fraud performed by a Nigerian citizen in Brazil. And the guy ran to Nigeria and (indiscernible) mighty structures in Abuja and many places. A true cooperation between Nigeria and Brazil, the guy was tracked down and (indiscernible). And the company back in Brazil got at least some of the -- got justice. So what I'm saying is that government has their clear role and it is not in discord. What we are also saying now is that we need to walk with existing mechanism, strengthen the existing mechanism. For example, it is such a great privilege that I'm here with my colleagues here, government, all the stakeholders, discussing this international issue. We are already discussing it. And I believe, Distinguished Chair, after this time out, whatever we agree will go to the CSTD. What the recommendation is, it will go to the CSTD. We are a composition of CSTD already. And CSTD, from there, it will go to ECOSOC and ECOSOC to G8 where governments really persuade it. So my submission is that, yes, we are making progress. We can actually really start some form of recommendation. Once we do the mapping, clearly everybody sees. And we also have some middle points, some understanding. So we have existing mechanism. We need to recognize this. The government already played the role, and we also support it and play also a role -- important role. And after this, CSTD will -- I have the privilege of being in the CSTD meeting, one of the meetings. And there's room for improvement. But we're making progress. So what we have currently can really pack in a lot of things if we focus on it, bilateral agreement, collaboration, cooperation, can pack a lot of things while we look forward to the optimum solution as the case may be. I just want to illuminate this question with regard to the role of government, which is undeniable very important. Sovereign rule is very important. There is a mandate for government which we will respect. Our government takes the lead in Africa and we follow. If government does not really move, we are happy the government is willing to come with them to move together. So we understand the role of government. But at the same time, at this top level, we should not complicate the matter necessarily. Finally, we got to the meeting periods, well, I wouldn't mind being around if you want to have three more meetings. But the funding issue is a challenge. So it is a major program we're into, and there is no funding. So is that a demonstration of the seriousness at the top level? So there should be some really commitment from the part of government that set this up. So this is good, Chair and colleagues. I just want to say that, well, as much as we can, if it is just one meeting, I personally will still be able to still try to fund myself to be here for one more meeting. Two more, I will need help. I'm a small business. And I feel that I have constituency, a lot of constituencies, as a matter of fact. So if we start making progress with recommendations and tidying up the mapping process, it will be better for us. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson. I fully understand your concerns and naturally take note of that. And probably if I suggest to have more than one meeting, I would suggest to have one meeting in January and eventually, if needed, to have an additional meeting in February in order to be able to have some contingency to be able to finish our work. Marilyn, you wanted to take the floor? >>MARILYN CADE: Yes. I think both the U.S. and Phil were -- and Virat. But I'm happy to speak, but I don't want to get in front of other people who have their flags up. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I have a list and you are on it. >>MARILYN CADE: Fantastic. [ Laughter ] What I wanted to -- first of all, I'd like to echo the comments that my colleague Jimson made. Even when there is funding available, that funding goes, first of all, to governments, to civil society and to academics. It never goes to small businesses. And this is a significant burden particularly for small businesses to participate. And we need to be really committed to having the diversity of participation. The vast number of businesses that will be starting in all countries are going to be small businesses. And that is where the engine of economic growth and bringing the kinds of public policies and access to the world that we want to see happen. So if we don't have the ability to have the participation of SMEs in our considerations and our deliberations, we are really missing a critical element of those who can help to provide thoughtful solutions. So I want to just reinforce the concern about that. I think we also have to understand that it is important to bring experts from capital for governments and to bring experts from the other stakeholders, not just to rely on the folks who are here in Geneva or are local from any stakeholder group because of the expertise and the depth of understanding that is needed. I would much prefer, Chair, that if we have -- that we have a longer meeting, even as long as four days, and that we dedicate our work. Many of us participate in other U.N. entities and activities, such as the ITU. We're quite familiar with multi-day meetings. So if we had this much work to do, one approach would be to have a four-day meeting and have only one meeting and to really dedicate ourselves to be able to diminish the cost implications of travel. But I took the floor really to make a comment about the Group 4 items. I've listened to concerns expressed by some participants that we can't talk about participation in what but, in fact, we ask questions. And over 60 respondents found answers to questions about participation in what. We may not be able to address the question about participation in a new mechanism since I don't believe there's consensus in the room on new mechanisms. But we certainly could look at Question 10 and Question 15. I think there is one other question. Because we have robust answers. We are an expert committee and we ask people to provide comments. And I want to be sure that we are living up to our commitment to those who submitted comments that we are focused on their answers. And there will be when we start talking about solutions probably some differences of opinion. But I do think we could start with Group 4. And generally I found in the long number of years I've been working in these fora, it's always better to start with the low-hanging fruit and have a couple of successes before you start diving into the deep end of the ocean. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. As for the suggestion of having a four-day meeting, eventually a five-day meeting, I have to tell you that I'm really enjoying your company. [ Laughter ] It is a real pleasure to be with you. >>MARILYN CADE: Chair, I hope you are not going to take a poll on whether everyone else agrees. >>CHAIR MAJOR: No, no, no, no. So I am ready. [ Laughter ] I'm really ready to have a four-day meeting or a five-day meeting. So much the better. And eventually it may be a good idea. So I had to fight to have a three-day meeting because originally it was meant to be a two-day meeting. But I'm ready to have the four-day or five-day meeting and probably it will have small businesses to come and civil society and all of our representatives because the extra cost is much less. Probably we have to ask other stakeholders how they think about it. But that's another issue. I'm ready for that. As for the low-hanging fruit, I like this expression, of course, and personally I'm all for it. But it's up to you naturally what you choose. So next one on my list is Virat. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the house would agree that three or four issues that have dominated the discussion over the last two days is about government's role in participation. The very difficult circumstances that is placed over developing countries are to participate in the Internet governance processes, even more within that the civil society groups and to some extent academia, and moving forward to identify what could be the mechanisms as well as said on day one that the heart of the problem is between Question 4, 8 -- 4 and 8 essentially. But I think we need to remind ourselves that we can't be a solution in search of a problem. We can't start drafting recommendations unless we have -- and most of us have agreed on that at some stage or the other -- a clear problem definition which is identified by the issues and a mapping exercise which tells us through the five-, six-step process, whatever we finalize on, which of the issues that need the kind of mechanisms that have been suggested by some. And I think the importance of the mapping exercise is underscored by the fact that if you look at the responses of the people who took the time to respond to us, the 60 responses, they've done a very elaborate job of putting those down as bullet points or numbers. And I think they deserve the importance and the consideration as we drive towards identifying mechanisms which is principally at the heart of Question 8 or Item 2, as it were. A question has been asked about what should be the role of developing countries in what. I think a similar question can be asked that we start writing recommendations for mechanisms to address what. So I suppose this is a chicken-and-egg story, and we have to begin at some stage where we can all find a basic consensus. My guess or assessment at least is that the last two buckets found a fairly high level of consensus in the sessions that you chaired earlier today. And that might be the appropriate place to begin work. I would also argue that with regards to the meetings, I think there are 15 participants here who have traveled from outside of Geneva that are on the three stakeholders that are seated at this table. And there are about six or eight on the observer side who have traveled. You have very kindly allowed 20 observers but only eight -- seven or eight have come in. In the civil society, there are only two participants. On the technical community, there are three out of five. So I think there's -- sorry, three participants on the civil society side. I think it's clear that these are the groups that are having difficulty even coming to this meeting. So given that they're having such difficulty even coming to a meeting which was planned for months and funding could have been arranged, I think the point that was made by my colleague here, Jimson, and others, we need to focus firstly on the latter two buckets. And, second, if a meeting has to be held, we would request two things of you. One is try and combine it or bring it close to another event which allows the participants to defray their costs. And look for a four-day meeting because I think it is -- while it might be an imposition on the time of the governments which are in Geneva because they have many, many things to do, I think the incremental cost of staying for a day is a small fraction, 150, 200 Swiss francs at best, even lower in some cases, than all of our costs of flying and sort of parking yourself twice over for three days. So if you could please consider that suggestion. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Virat. As I told you, I have nothing against having a four- or five-day meeting, on the contrary. And your point is taken. Jimson's point is taken. And probably all of us -- or many of us are sympathetic to this solution. And thank you for offering that. I have Iran on the list and USA and we have Avri who is a remote participant from the civil society. Iran, please. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your efforts. You're trying to solve the problem as soon as possible and as much as possible. I may have been on your side first that we have to start with the easiest issues to solve, to make an example of our cooperations. But listening carefully to the room, I think the matter is not to start from deep ocean or shallow waters. I think the matter is to start with the core issue, which is more important. We need to finish first the core issues. As you heard from me in the morning that the other questions like 10 or 15 are very much related to the answers on Question 3 or 2, therefore, when we don't have -- or we have not reached any conclusion on the core issue, how come we can go to the end of the matter? I can make this example that we are constructing a building. Do we start from finishing, or do we start from the foundation? So the core issue which is the first and second group of questions are the foundation. Let's start from the foundation, not the finishing. That will help us to go faster in the other steps we are going to take. On having the meetings for four days, Mr. Chairman, we are in your hands. We are ready to whatever the room is going to decide to have four or three days, two or three meetings, no problem. But let's start from the most important parts and very hard part of our job. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Iran. United States? >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, this is to signal our support for your approach to meet our mandate and to show progress as soon as possible. Chairman, we think it makes very good sense to approach first those issues that are likely to reach consensus. I think Brazil put it first, low-hanging fruit. And we agree and I think other speakers did as well. We think it's important to allow the mapping exercise to move forward so that we can be informed on difficult issues that we wish to find consensus. Again, I'm remembering words -- if I'm remembering correctly of what the Ambassador from Brazil said, it would be very helpful to know where we are to better inform where we're going. We think it is important to take the time we need, whatever time that is in the estimation and assessment of this group, to address all issues, important issues, core issues, all of them, to find consensus. So, Chairman, for these reasons, simply to come in and to support you in your approach. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, United States. And, finally, if I'm not mistaken, it's Avri. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Am I muted? Am I unmuted? >>CHAIR MAJOR: You are unmuted, Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: I'm unmuted now. Thank you. I join those of my colleagues in the room who have suggested that we need to do the mapping exercise before we start to make recommendations. I guess I'm among those who do not understand how we can make any recommendation if we haven't finished the analysis. We have done a first discussion of the comments we received, but we have not done yet the analysis that the mapping exercise represents that brings all of these things together, that maps them against existing institutions and that finds the gaps, the gaps that I believe were our mandate to go back and see what they fill. I also agree with those that say we must start with the most important part, but I for one still don't understand which part is the most important until we have done a mapping exercise. We may end up solving the problem for which there is already a solution if we try to do it before we have fully understood. I also have a question. At the beginning of the inception you said that we would not be working on a basis of consensus. Perhaps I misunderstood when that statement -- when I heard -- or when I thought I heard that. I'm being very careful with my words, spending all day at the IETF where one speaks one way and spending all night with this meeting where we speak another way has been very confusing for my brain. But if -- if I didn't misunderstand we're not working on a basis of consensus, on what basis are we deciding what it is we, as a group, are recommending? And finally -- >>CHAIR MAJOR: Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: I support Marilyn's call for a longer meeting, if needed. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: I believe it -- yes. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Sorry to interrupt you. We are working on the basis of consensus, which does not mean they are not -- we don't allow dissent. >>AVRI DORIA: I'm still confused. So we are working on a basis of consent. >>CHAIR MAJOR: You're not muted. Consensus means consensus. >>AVRI DORIA: So we're working on a basis of rough consensus. Okay. Thank you. Finally I wanted to say I support Marilyn and the other people who have called for a longer meeting. I actually also believe that it is better to maximize the time spent at a meeting as opposed to dealing with multiple travel events which cost people a minimum of two days, sometimes for some people it's four days just to travel to and from a meeting. If that needs to be done, fine. But if we can maximize the time, and again, I think it's very important for various reasons to have a very strong notion of remote participation for whatever meeting we do. In my case I had a conflict because of an important technical meeting. In other cases it might be funding, it might be other events. Participating in a meeting from 1:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. is okay as long as one can do it. And I appreciate all the efforts that have been made to make it possible. But I think that is essential medium in terms of supporting everyone in this group and supporting all the important observers who can contribute to this important role. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. Anyone else who would like to take the floor on these procedural issues? India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. The debate seems to have started from this end of the table. I think, you know, we again have a bit of a Catch-22 situation here. One, as I said, the particular -- we are talking the process now. We aren't talking the substance. I think to be very clear, some colleagues have gone down the path of, you know, looking at the substance and drawing conclusions and others are not interested. I don't think that's the case. The (indiscernible) for arriving at very positive and concrete recommendations is when we actually come to do -- as we know, let's at all agree to that, there are some difficult areas. Our difficulty sitting as part of the representatives of the government is that these decisions are not made just in this room. They are to be made back home. There will be consultations. All that we need is, if we decide to go down that path, we need to know what are those issues. Because we cannot come to the last meeting and be told this is the last meeting and then we are presented with a situation for which we will not have answers. And that's the short point I'm making. So if we can find the solution, we should be able to do that. Whichever way we go, I mean, we have great confidence in your leadership -- I use the word "leadership" -- and to take it back there. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, I'm listening to you very carefully, and I can't help thinking about the questionnaire we had, the answers which have been made available, and the summary which was made available as well. So we cannot pretend that we don't know the issues. We cannot pretend that back home people didn't know the issues who are responsible to -- for all discussions on the governmental level. So I don't think that this is a proper way of putting it. I fully agree that we need agreement, some of us need agreement from back home, or at least need to consult. But having said that, all the information was available and we knew the issues, we knew what we came here for, and we knew what was ahead of us. We have to work. Now we are discussing how we are going to work. The easiest part is whether we are going to have -- well, probably we are not going to have two meetings, we are going to have one meeting. And as I hear from the room, there is a kind of agreement that we shall have a four -- eventually a five-day meeting. Which should be back-to-back to some other important event. Probably we have to consult our calendars. There's an IGF open consultation on the one hand, there are important meetings in the ITU, council working groups, this is (indiscernible). So probably we have to go back to your calendars and find out the appropriate way to handle it. It's most unfortunate that we cannot really take many more events into account which may be conflicting. I'm referring to eventually to IETF meetings or ICANN meetings or -- I'm referring only to meetings which we have in Geneva. That's one point. And so the second point, how we are going to proceed. I heard three approaches. One approach was, don't do anything until we go through the mapping exercise. But we have -- we have heard as well that if we go into the mapping exercise, we need support for some of us. We need support from back home. Because we are going to make kind of value judgments and we are going to set categories and we are going to classify different issues which have been submitted to us which probably those who submitted to us vote -- or felt very important and they are very important for them. So I believe if we go into the mapping exercise, a full mapping exercise, it may take the whole day tomorrow, but it will take a couple of more weeks. That's one point. The other point is, I heard the approach that eventually we should go and tackle the core issues. I heard also that we cannot tackle core issues before we do the mapping exercise. I heard as well that we need some confidence building. And it -- it was said that eventually some questions in Group 4 and 5 would serve this purpose, to help us to build some confidence and to find out for me how this group can work together. Up to now, we have been discussing, we have had very nice debate, very good discussions, very good ideas, but as of now I think we have to work. So I really think that probably as a compromise we should give a try to the mapping exercise, to start for a very short while and I have had the promise from observers that I will have a reduced list, and we can try, how does it work. But we're not going to finish with that, and I don't intend to finish it here. As we agree that we are not going to finish it here. We agree that we are going to have a kind of working party which will be an open and developing party in the same way that we have the working group here. Now as for the core issues, if we agree that core issues are extremely difficult and may be some time damaging for the confidence if we fail at the very beginning, then probably I wouldn't think it's a wise thing, even though I -- I appreciate the logic concerning the foundation and concerning the building from bottom-up, but I also believe that at the end of the meeting we are going -- right now if we can have at least some kind of mechanism we can agree upon that is how to come to some consensus on recommendations, it would be extremely beneficial. And it doesn't prevent us to attack the core issues when we have the result of the mapping exercise, when we have a clear picture and we will be involved in that, to attack during a long meeting, which I suggest to be sometime, as we have agreed, next year, to attack the core issues and all issues and we can come up with appropriate recommendations. So what I suggest for tomorrow, after having received the document, we start discussing the document. I would suggest to have this discussion for about an hour, and then I also suggest to try the procedure how to achieve some kind of consensus on recommendations. I hope this is agreeable to all of us. Yes, Joy. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. Can you hear me? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, Joy, we can hear you. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: A brief comment. Thank you to the Secretariat for sending the document to the list. I wonder is it possible for us to make amendments to the document and post those back to the list. I'm asking because some submissions are not included, and it might be helpful to get those. But I also don't want to unduly (indiscernible) later a briefing on the document. I think if there's some guidance on that I would appreciate it. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Joy, I consulted with the Secretariat and probably your request will be taken into consideration. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a five-minute spot for the observers before we break, and I -- I hope you are going to tell us good news. >> Thank you, Chair. So we've been working on removing the duplicates from the document now and while we have some time to go yet but it should be done today. So it's probably ready for tomorrow. To answer Joy's question, perhaps not to confuse anyone, it might be best to send the list of issues that you have, Joy, to either me or the Chair and then we can get it and then we'll include it onto the list that we're working on now, if that's okay. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: That would be a perfect solution. I'd prefer to send to -- to send it to the Secretariat. Thank you. Well -- just a request to observers, do you think you can make it available by 9:00 tonight? Okay. In that case, the Secretariat can send it out for the beginning of tomorrow's meeting. So in this spirit I wish you a nice evening and I see you tomorrow at 10:00. Thank you. ***Live scribing by Brewer & Darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***. -------------- next part -------------- 8 November, 2013 Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation 10:00 a.m. Geneva, Switzerland [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome also to today. I could see from the U.N. that it was a productive night, evening, morning. We have a document produced by the voluntary task force. They managed to bring down the number of issues from 483 to some 200, if I'm not mistaken. But I'm told this is not the final and there's still some work to be done. So before starting our work today, I would like to give you some summary how I see the progress we have made during the second day of our meeting. So yesterday we discussed Group Number 4 and Group Number 5 questions. And I think the discussion was very interesting and very fruitful, and I could sense a great deal of consensus on many issues. At the same time, we received the spreadsheet. Yesterday it was 483. Now I think it's down to 200. These are issues which have been extracted from the responses to the questionnaire we have created. And I understand that there was some additional contributions to this spreadsheet as far as the issues are concerned. So as I mentioned, the voluntary task group tried to eliminate the duplicates. And we are facing now to identify categories and what is behind -- what is ahead of us, in fact, is to identify mechanisms and institutions. So probably it's a huge task and I think we can agree that probably the time which is available for us is not enough, but we can have a test run, what I will propose a little bit later. So yesterday we have also gave some thoughts about the future meeting or meetings. And it has been said that eventually, if we could have one meeting instead of two and one meeting would be longer, it would be beneficial for all of us. And I think there was a kind of consensus on that issue. So I would propose to have a third meeting, a five-day meeting, sometime in February back-to-back to the ITU Council Working Group on WSIS +10. Probably the secretariat should check the availability of the rooms. So what I propose is the 10th to the 14th of February. But we can discuss it, but definitely I would like to have a five-day meeting. We should take into consideration as well that we are going to have the IGF open consultation and the MAG meeting which I think -- I can't see Chengetai now. But I think it's around the 17th, 18th. I'm not really sure but somewhere around this time. So probably it will fit into this long period. Yes, Marilyn? >>MARILYN CADE: Chair, if I might just contribute to the consideration of the calendar for all colleagues for just a minute. The WSIS +10/WSIS Forum consultation dates are fixed, organized at the ITU, 17th through 18th of February which is Monday and Tuesday. Not all colleagues externally from stakeholders will be participating in person in that session but many colleagues from other stakeholders, which I'm not trying to address governments but other stakeholders, will participate in the IGF consultation, the IGF/MAG consultation. Could we consider for efficiency's sake also the option of the week following so a second option to consider would be 17th, 18th February is the fixed WSIS +10 meeting. That, of course, needs to be respected. Then, if possible, a three-day MAG/IGF meeting, a weekend and then the CSTD working group meeting. I believe that would be the -- not looking at a calendar, but that would be the last week of February, the 24th. Because if external travelers, those outside of Geneva, do not have to travel to the WSIS +10 meeting but will be traveling to the IGF, it would be more efficient time-wise to have the IGF consultation and the CSTD working group consultations adjacent to each other. Just as a consideration. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn, for the -- for this information. I have no preference. My preference is to optimize on the costs and efficiency, of course. It is really up to you. I'm ready to be with you, as I said yesterday, as I'm enjoying your company. [ Laughter ] And I mean it. [ Laughter ] Any time. But probably not during Christmas. But who knows. [ Laughter ] So, yes, Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. And good morning to all colleagues. Well, just to agree with the previous speaker, we have a preference for the week starting with February 24. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Virat? >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, everyone. I think the point that Marilyn has made which is a lot of stakeholders will come to the open consultation for the MAG and they could stretch themselves over the weekend and stay back for the next four or five days for the conference. So that we do support the issue of moving it the week after the MAG meetings. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. I have no problem with that. I think we are going to have the open consultation on Wednesday and the MAG meeting on Thursday and there will be a consultation for the donor countries, donors, which will be on Friday and probably many of us won't be involved in this discussion on Friday. So you will have one free day, Friday, to go to the mountains and ski. And it is also applicable for the weekend. Okay. So can we agree on the last week of February, a five-day meeting? Joy? Joy, I can hear that you want to intervene. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Yes. Good morning, everybody. Good morning, colleagues. I need to ask you to call a halt to this conversation because the remote participants cannot hear the conversation, nor can we see the transcript. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. I think we are going to fix it. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning, everyone. We have no difficulties with the last week of February -- (typing noise). But if we could ask the ITU in the cluster groups of the council working groups in February, we need to know because it might -- the following week, usually it's two weeks, council working groups. And I'm not sure the WSIS +10, is it in the second week or the first week. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Can you check it? >>SAUDI ARABIA: I will. And I will get back. >>CHAIR MAJOR: On your Web site -- >>SAUDI ARABIA: It is not on the Web site yet. I checked. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. >>SAUDI ARABIA: I might coordinate with the ITU and get back to you this session. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Very useful. Very useful. Yes, ITU, you don't know about the council working groups? >>ITU: Thank you, Chairman. Yes, but it is still under discussion and then it will be posted on the Web site soon but I will check it with the General Secretariat and come back to you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, provisionally, can we agree on the last week? I think this is the most suitable. Probably we can't find any other period which suits all of us. That's clear. Jimson? >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Yeah. Distinguished Chair, Your Excellency, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I support the last speaker about when the meeting should be called February 24th to 28th. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So I can conclude that there's a support for this. Probably we didn't take into account the ski holidays in Switzerland, but that's another issue. For me, the important thing is we agree on a five-day meeting. It will allow us to work through all the issues which are ahead of us. And I sincerely hope that at the end of the third meeting, we will have a consolidated document of recommendation. Ellen, please. >> ELLEN BLACKLER: Thank you. Good morning. Can we talk a little bit about whether four or five days should be the meeting length? Is there a way we could stretch out each of the days a little longer, maybe start at 9:00 instead of 10:00 and maybe keep it to four so we can do travel on the fifth day? >>CHAIR MAJOR: India, please. >>INDIA: Good morning, Chair. Good morning all colleagues. We can fully support that proposal. If we can stretch a little more and work for four days, we have no difficulty. But we can also work five. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I have no difficulty starting at 9:00 and coming back at 2:00 and working until 6:00. I really have no difficulties about that. Still, I think we have to have a fifth day as a contingency. Yes, Virat. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chairman, whatever you do, please don't make it 9:00 to 8:00 and five days. [ Laughter ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, I can't promise on the last day that we are not going to stay here up until 9:00 in the evening, but I will try to avoid it. Okay. Let's come back to this issue. Let's give a second thought. We agreed on the last week of February. We agreed that it won't be a three-day meeting. It will be a longer meeting, eventually four or five. I prefer to have a five-day meeting. But let's get back to that. Now, what I propose now, we have the document provided by the voluntary task force. And I understand it's coming or it's being -- they still need one minute. What I propose, after we receive it, we have a one-hour slot to consider this document and I would like to have proposals how to proceed with the document. What I can see, the complexity of it requires some further thinking. I really would like to have the proposals how to move forward. Definitely, it is a very valuable document and it will help us to clarify the institutions to identify gaps so I believe this is something we should really take seriously into consideration. After the one-hour slot, we shall have coffee break. Then I propose to get back to two things. There was a proposal from India yesterday to kind of frame our work that is the end result, which are recommendations. And I would expect to have some proposal from India concerning some text which is, I would repeat, a draft. It is a draft and we are going to revisit everything during our last meeting. Having said that, I would like also to have proposals for Group 4 and 5 questions as far as recommendations are concerned. Yesterday I heard that some delegates, some members, would like to propose some recommendations for this group. In case we can come up with a consolidated spreadsheet on the issues and we can come up with the framework for the recommendations and if we can somehow put some text into this framework, I think we have done a great job. And this is a very solid basis for our next meeting. So I'm just turning to Sam. You have the document? It is in electronic form? It is available for the WGEC list? >> I just sent it to wgec at unctad.org. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. Thank you. First of all, I would like to ask you, is it acceptable the way I propose to move forward? That is, one-hour slot to discuss the paper and after coffee break, we start discussion on framework for the recommendations and eventually populate this framework. If it is acceptable to you, just one technical issue. I'm told by the secretariat, in case you need a printout which may be useful, it takes 10 to 15 minutes. Joy, still have problems? >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Just a question, a clarification, please. Perhaps it is an issue with the transcript or not quite hearing, I believe you suggested that after considering the document, we might need a framework for recommendations. And I just wanted to clarify that process because I believe at the end of yesterday, we agreed to consider gaps in relation to what issues proposed before making recommendations. So I'm just trying to clarify in relation to the proposed framework how that relates to the discussion and agreement we had at the end of yesterday. If you could clarify that for me, please. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. Yesterday we agreed that we should move forward with the document. I had a proposal to have some kind of test run on some part of the document to find out how it functions. It is my appreciation that we need additional work. So I would propose to have a kind of working party who would move forward with the document which has real -- really -- (no audio.) (No audio to the scribes.) >>CHAIR MAJOR: Is it okay? Okay. So in the document, we still have, I think, three columns which are empty. And it is not a one-hour job to populate it. So that's why I suggest to have -- to create a working party to propose mapping of issues, and this will be a working party basically probably most of the time by correspondence. It is up to you to find out if there is a possibility of creating some kind of collaborative platform. I'm sure there is. And naturally the working party should work in the same way as the working group, that is, with the contributions of observers. So that's the way I propose to move forward. Avri, you wanted to take the floor? >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, I did. Can I be heard? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, you can. >>AVRI DORIA: Because I can't hear you so I can't be sure but I can read. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. I guess I am among those who was recommending that we really needed to complete this work before moving to recommendations. However, understanding that that choice is not ours to make, I would like to point out and let the group know that a few of us within the civil society side have been working on an early set of recommendations to put a stake in the ground. So if we are going to move to discussing recommendations, we also have a set that I will send to the WGEC list during the next interval so that hopefully that can be discussed with any plans that are put there by others. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. Very, very useful and very helpful. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. And good morning to everyone. I understand we are now discussing for an hour how roughly the mapping could be done. So I would -- I think that present categories are good, kind of consolidates the laundry list and then specifies current activities and approach -- approaches. And after we do that, we need to convert it into what we have to come up with, and that is a study of the mechanisms, existing, needing to be strengthened and new ones. That's the core of the issue. And how these -- the list, therefore, relates to that. And we have agreed that we are not going to come up with answers to those public policy questions but only to the extent that they lead us to the institutional requirements. So as we started to discuss, I think we need to reach -- it's good to kind of clarify the purpose of this exercise and I understand the purpose is somewhat to validate what has already been observed in Section 60 of Tunis Agenda, that there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanism. Now that's where the whole enhanced cooperation discussion starts. So we are kind of validating that and also adding the facts and wisdom of the last nine years after WSIS. So while I was thinking and also like Virat said yesterday about whether issues are local or global, there is a series of filters we can put on -- and figure out what kind of institutional requirements are needed. The first is to judge whether these are public policy issues. These are Internet-related public policy issues. Second, we judge whether they are international or global. Third, we judge whether some institutions are already dealing with them in a substantive manner. And then we judge whether some of these issues are being dealt by some institutions but not adequately and not in a holistic manner, something Ambassador from Brazil has been insisting, that even if issues have been dealt, some of the issues are interconnected with other issues and holistic treatment requires some kind of new possibilities. And then next category is of issues which have been called orphan issues in some of the submissions. I don't like that term. But we are talking about issues which more or less are very new and have more likely possible right now institutional home. So that's it. So if we are doing this to each of the issues, even it is rough, we don't have to agree on each element belonging to one or two. It is enough that we find bunches under each and then we start talking of the institutional requirements, enhancements or new possibilities against each. Thank you. I can get this list to the main list, e-list, and then people can see it. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. I think it will be extremely useful if you did that. Your analysis, I think, is very close to the common understanding. Some may have different ideas. Phil? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Good morning. I'm not one for new ideas. I leave that to others better than I. But I just seek clarification as to your proposal for a working party or an ad hoc group, call it what you will, as to how you see that working going forward from this meeting in advance of our next meeting realizing that it's not that long a wait. May sound like it. Three months, 12 weeks, maybe 14 weeks. So it would be good if you could share with us your thoughts as to how you see that time being used and how that group would work. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for being practical. [ Laughter ] Naturally, there should be some kind of leader of this working party or ad hoc group or coordinator. Let's call it coordinator. And the working group would be eventually a correspondence group or it may have conference calls, but there will be a rolling document to which all interested parties can contribute with the end of filling the gaps. When I say "gaps," I mean in the sense of filling the empty columns and come up with a kind of final draft which will be submitted to this group for further discussions and approval. Now, as for who is going to be the coordinator is up to you. It will be on a voluntary basis. And whoever would like to join this working party or ad hoc group is free to do so. I have no influence on that. So probably it will be a good idea to start with the beginning who is going to head this -- who is going to coordinate and I need volunteers. I definitely would have a preference someone from the group, from the working group. Phil? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Into a dire space, but if you're calling for a volunteer, I'm happy to lead and take guidance from the group as to what I should be writing. So I'm happy to act as the convener of that correspondence group. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. So it's basically a coordination task to -- and I would invite all of you to join the group, ad hoc group. I would like you, Phil, lastly to give some working modalities as for the ad hoc group. Let it be a correspondence -- probably the Secretariat can set up a correspondence site, reflector, or if you think of other means, eventually a collaborative platform, that would be fine as well. Joy, you wanted to take the floor. Joy? >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to reach out to also volunteer to support Phil and to thank him for his willingness to step forward and just to say I'm also willing to help volunteer to help assist, if needed. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I'm happy that you volunteer. Probably there's room. There's enough work to be done for 2, even for 40. So we are undertaking a really big task. Yes, Virat. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chair, two points. One, I think we had some volunteers yesterday, including some observers on here who had sort of offered to help and you said you would take that under consideration, so I think at some stage if you could get a verdict on that, that would be helpful because we need many hands on this one, especially those who are passionate and are willing to do this and have responded to the question in great detail. The second point, I just want to clarify because Parminder has laid out the steps and I had sort of put out a five-step process yesterday, I just want to make sure that we're clear there is a distinction because what was stated yesterday, with your permission I'll state that again, is remove the duplicates which has already been done, judge whether the issue falls under internet governance talk, enhanced cooperation, third, whether it's an issue that requires domestic treatment or needs to be dealt at a sort of global level. Third is the WGEC plus classification which is proposed by the distinguished delegate from India, and the last was whether the existing processes exist or need to be strengthened or any other options that need to be discussed. So if that is not -- is that what we are following or do we have a -- more edification of that? I just want to be -- and I think the House sort of had a broad agreement, I suppose, on that. Are we think anything different? And the second point is -- the third point is, do we -- the working group can't go after all the issues at the same time. Some sort of a prioritization might be required. So perhaps the step six, which is in terms of timelines and prioritization on which of the issues that need addressing first and which can wait, I think that will need to be done. You know, and we can talk more about why that is important now or later, but I think that is an important step, because we already have 100-odd issues, and even after filtering it there are lots of issues. So I just wanted to place that. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Virat. I'll start from the very end. And I would like to encourage all stakeholders, including governments naturally, to participate in this exercise. And the reason for that is very simple and very evident to me. We are talking about enhanced cooperation and we are talking about the roles of government. With other stakeholders probably if we are going to discuss it, government's participation is crucial. That's why I suggest again that the governments would like to participate in this exercise. Now, as for the methodology or the steps you suggested, it's -- I think it's agreeable, probably within the group during the working process, you will find some adjustments. I can't really imagine that from the outset you know exactly what you're going to do. Probably it will be modified and probably some other ideas could be taken on board and you will find that some ideas you have suggested are not of that importance. So that's how I see as for the timeline. For me it's important that we have the kind of consolidated document for the next meeting. How you prioritize it, naturally, it's coming from our mandate, that is enhanced cooperation. So basically we have to concentrate on that, and it is my assessment from the meeting that the governments have concerns about their role in the Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. So basically priority for me in this respect. Having said that, naturally all stakeholders are invited to (indiscernible). Brazil, please. Oh, Marilyn, you were first. I'm sorry. You're always first. >>MARILYN CADE: That's good. You guys are looking at me for Thanksgiving, U.S. Thanksgiving holiday. I think I may be in Hungary. Thank you, Chair. I wanted to build on trying to be very practical and pragmatic about how to use the mapping document and make it simpler, while maintaining its depth and richness. I took a look this morning with the advice of some colleagues about the WGIG categories and I'm -- I think maybe you have them available. I might ask you to read them out. I was thinking one way we might think about simplifying this would be to put the -- and we could quickly do this as a small group of volunteers, kind of -- or we could do it after the fact, take the very long list of categories and put them, to the extent possible, under these four headings which I'm going to ask, if you don't mind, for you to read. And then if we added just one or two other categories, we would have four to six big categories with subtopics underneath them. And that, I think, would allow us to be much more effective in how we work. So if I might, if you don't mind, Baher, if you could read them, I think you had them pulled up, and there are just four. And then I have one final comment. >>BAHER ESMAT: Okay. Yeah, there are four categories. One, issues relating to infrastructure and management of critical Internet resources, including administration of the domain names, IP addresses, root server systems, technical standards, peering, telecommunication infrastructures. Two, issues relating to the use of the Internet, including spam, network security, and cybercrime. Three, issues that are relevant to the Internet but have an impact much wider than the Internet, such as intellectual property rights. Four, issues relating to developmental aspects, in particular capacity building. >>MARILYN CADE: So I'm not -- you know, particularly I think we've got to keep the richness of the bullets that have been prepared by our team but I think we also need some headings because when we all go home, we have to introduce this document to folks that are not immersed in it. And being able to say to them there are five to six major categories and here are the sum categories I think will be a much more effective way for us to be able to use the document. And then, when we develop recommendations, we will need to be probably particularizing looking at the subpoints. I'm not suggesting that we would make recommendations only on the main headings. I do think we will need to make recommendations that are specific to the subpoints because the stage of evolution or activity will vary depending on the subpoint. So that was my -- the first point I wanted to make, Chair. And then the second point I wanted to make goes back to, I thank Mr. Rushton for volunteering to be a coordinator/convener. Sounded like Joy was volunteering to be a co-convener/coordinator. And I think if there were -- it were possible to pass around here and then post to the WGEC list a sign-up sheet for those who want to volunteer to be in what I will call the mapping group, it -- that would be one step. But I think we also ought to take a few minutes to meet, and maybe we could meet ad hoc at lunch, to kind of sort through what do we think -- how do we think this -- these procedures are going to -- going to work. Because we're going to be widely distributed over the next 10 to 12 weeks and we could try to come up with an idea of how it might work and what the calendar might look like for us to be able to work together online. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. It's very useful, as always. Just getting back to what Phil asked me about the timeline, probably it would be a good idea to set some kind of intermediate target dates in order to avoid some rush at the very end of the three-month period. So probably it would be nice to have some kind of intermediate document around middle of January to know where we are, how we are doing. And then have some kind of final draft for the meeting itself. Before I give the floor to Phil, Brazil, you asked for the floor. >>BRAZIL: Thank you. Very briefly, just to agree with the idea that the work of the group should be guided or should have a parameter of the five steps that were proposed, I think both by Parminder and by -- by Phil. I think they have a lot of convergence and the core ideas are there. And also to indicate the willingness of -- the interest of my delegation to participate in the group, to support the group, and to provide input also to that priority -- prioritizing of the issues in other areas. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. I think it's -- it's some example that should be followed. Phil, you are recognized. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Just to go back to the timeline issue that you raised and to give people something to ponder on before we meet later today, I would suggest a first draft -- first run-through of the process to have been completed by about the first week in January. And to give people in this group time to review the great work that the correspondence group will do -- I sow that seed in your mind -- to have completed that by at least two weeks prior to your meeting. So we will complete it by -- if we start on the 24th of February, we will complete the work by the 12th of February. So with those -- >> [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >>PHIL RUSHTON: Complete it by the 24th -- by the 12th of February. That's two weeks. >> [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. I really appreciate it and I think that's a reasonable approach. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I was going to say is already captured by the distinguished ambassador from Brazil. We are willing to work in this working group or correspondence group. But as stated, the terms of reference or the parameters for this group has to be very clear set before this group starts. Especially that there will be nowhere physical meetings that -- I mean, an agreement or a guided approach can be taken. What has been stated by Parminder and Virat, that we have to put in this meeting for that correspondence group what are they going to do. For example, as is stated, what are the priorities of these public policy issues or these issues or what is the (indiscernible) issues that has been dealt. Maybe before that, is this a public policy issue or not, then what is the priorities of prioritizing these issues. Then has it been dealt with or not. Has it been adequately dealt or addressed or not. And then to identify the gap in order to be able to see what kind of an action is required in establishing a mechanism or a mechanism needs to be established or enhanced, something in the -- in the existing mechanism. But these parameters has to be set in this meeting, otherwise different views will come in the correspondence group through emails and it might be difficult to come up with a very consolidated outcome from this group. And we have full confidence with Mr. Phil, and he has been chairing so many working parties and what's the good thing this time he will not have a (indiscernible) after having it online. Thanks. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Majed. We have already set out the terms of reference. So probably the only thing we have to do is go back to the scripts and just formulate it. Provided everybody feels comfortable with that. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: I think that we need -- we really don't have much differences and I understand that there are two kinds of categorization that Avri mentioned and both can be accommodated, even in the existing Excel sheet. There is one column which says "consolidated grouping" and that is by subject area which can follow whether it is a CIS (phonetic) group or whatever development issues, more or less that we get classification plus something else. And the last column is status. And we all know the status is important because that directly relates to our mandate of what has to be done. And under status is the categories which I had mentioned which are about, you know, whether it is this, what has been done, what needs to be done, et cetera, et cetera. So I think both columns exist to accommodate both kinds of categories in the existing Excel sheet. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. We think that it's good to build on the work that has already been done. So the idea of categorizing these issues under the categories that were agreed by the Working Group On Internet Governance, the four categories, would be a good start. Then we can see if there is a need for any additional categories. But we think that it's important not to duplicate work too much and to build on what has already been issued. When it comes to the working group or working party or whatever we want to call it, first of all, we would like to be part of that as well. We would also like to say that we agree with those before us that said that it's important with the -- in terms of reference for this working group. And we are not so sure that, for example, this working party will be able to prioritize between different public policy issues. Because that could be an issue, I think that could be quite contentious, what do we think are important public policy issues. That varies quite a lot, I think, from stakeholder to stakeholder. So my suggestion is that the Secretariat would maybe draft a very short document on -- that describes terms of reference and then we could discuss that later, maybe here today, so that everyone feels truly comfortable with the terms of reference and what tasks we are giving this group. I think for us, at least, that would be -- would give us much comfort. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Let me make it clear that the correspondence group is in no way to replace the working group itself. Probably takes its mandate from the working group, meaning as well that it doesn't take over the responsibilities of this working group. So probably the -- as Sweden mentioned, the prioritizing is an issue for the working group itself. So probably it would be too ambitious to give this task and responsibility to the correspondence group. Having said that, they may come up with suggestions and proposals, but the decision will be within the group. Joy, you wanted to take the floor. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to support the tenor of the conversations and points and to make two points. One is about the proposed categories. I do have some strong concerns about limiting ourselves to the WGIG categories, being the clear mandate to this working group is to consider (indiscernible) and I fear that by limiting ourselves to the WGIG categories we will not adequately capture the need and many blossoming issues that are affected in the submissions that we get. So I would suggest that we continue to think about the categories, and I note, for example, that some submissions had categories in them, the Big Bits submission, for example, with a range of different categories for these public policy issues which perhaps with the opportunity to reflect back to this working group might be useful. So I would ask (indiscernible) when we go to work on this task be given some flexibility in that regard. With specific regard to I would just make -- I agree with the point made about some terms of reference for the task, but I think rather than being focused on the activities, it be focused on the output, what is it that as a working group we need this task to bring back to us. I think that would be very productive in the limited time available. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. Virat, you want to take the floor. >> [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Oh,U.S. Sorry. You're in the Switzerland's shadow. >>UNITED STATES: We're happy to be in the shadow of the Swiss mountains. Thank you, Chairman. [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >>UNITED STATES: We certainly want to state clearly our support for this mapping effort, and of course we'll be involved and supply what we can. And we want to be in that position because we think we really need this. We said yesterday, it's true today, we think that we need to know where we are to figure out where we're going. Chairman, for us, this mapping exercise will create a record, if you will, of information that will then be very helpful for us, we hope, to deal with priority issues. And we know that our -- some priority issues will be difficult. But in any event, this mapping exercise should -- should support the effort of this group. We very much appreciate your clarification, but this map -- this mapping group that's going on certainly isn't going to replace the deliberations of this group so that they hopefully will be bringing back all of this excellent information and then convening as a group again and hopefully making progress on what some have called the priority interest. Thank you very much. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, U.S. And thank you, Switzerland. Virat. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chairman, two quick clarifications, since I had mentioned WGIG yesterday I think to the point that the distinguished delegate from India has made yesterday, but this morning I did sort of improve on that by suggesting WGIG+ categories. So I agree with Joy that, you know, that session of yesterday we had, I think, conclude on this morning may not have been noticed in that fashion. But I agree with the point that she's making and I think we -- most of us agree on that. The second was the point that was made from the distinguished delegate from Sweden and then referred to by the U.S. about prioritization. When I mentioned that as a six-step prioritization, it wasn't for the working party, it was really for the group to look at after the results come in and what kind of work this group can look at as a whole because really that decision should rest where everybody is involved in a bigger discussion. So I just wanted to clarify those two points. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Well, after this discussion -- I haven't finished yet. After this discussion I will ask the Secretariat to draft the terms of references and bring it back to the group. And probably after finalizing the terms of references the group may start having informal consultations during lunchtime -- I'm sorry to dispose of your during lunchtime. You have heard it. So I think this is the way forward, and I am happy that many governments would like to participate and I would encourage all governments who are present and who have interest to participate in this work because I think it contributes very much to the work of this working group. Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the point I was going to make was already captured in your last speech. So I just wanted to follow-up on what Saudi Arabia and Sweden have indicated, that it would leave us more comfort if we could have clarity on these terms of reference. And as we listen to the remote participants, Joy, it is clear, for example, that in regard to categories there might be different ideas if we do not spell out clearly. And I take the point that there is a richness in the debate and that might develop ideas or improve categories, but this would, I think, lead us to lose a lot of time in this working group, this working party around, let's say, conceptual ways, so I think if we can come out of this meeting with a very clear terms of reference, as you have indicated, I think this will assist the working party and have very efficient work in such a short time frame, I think it would be -- it will assist us in the process. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. Two quick points. Firstly, we also wish to convey our strong confidence in Phil, and I'm sure -- and also to express that we would be very much happy to assist in any manner as a delegation. And the second, this eminent suggestion that we have to take as the categories should be WGIG+ because otherwise we could be accused of still having a 2004 mind-set rather than a 2014 mind-set, I think. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. Mexico? >>MEXICO: Thank you, Chair. Just to support what the ambassador from Brazil said, it is very important to leave this room with a clear mandate for this other group and especially for our experts back in capital so they have a clear idea what the work will be and how to proceed. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Marilyn, then Parminder. >>MARILYN CADE: Let me see. Since I was one of the people who talked about WGIG+ plus, let me see if I can clarify what I was meaning. I think we should drop after we finish this discussion any reference to WGIG+ plus and just talk about having a short list of headings which we work under and so we would no longer refer to them as WGIG. To respond to your comment, we wouldn't say WGIG+ in the future, we would just call them the agreed headings or something. But I was just proposing we use the substance. And I think that's also what Virat was suggesting and Baher and others. So in the future, we wouldn't go out of here saying WGIG+, we would say consolidated headings with subpoints. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So probably we can come up with WGEC categories. So we start a new era. [ Laughter ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: I agree with Marilyn. And I think in my understanding there is already a resolution, and I will try to give my perception of it as the secretariat settles down to frame -- draft the framework of reference, terms of reference. We have a category of consolidated grouping which is what Marilyn is talking about, which was referred to as WGIG+, is now the grouping which is substantive grouping. The next column is "current activities and approaches." Who wants to try to write what does that mean? The last is status. And the status grouping is different from the substantive groupings which are by areas. And I think the status is still needed as the reference point for going forward in our discussion. So I think in this matrix, I understand everything which has been said. Seems to be accommodated. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Avri. Avri? >>AVRI DORIA: I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on it. I would like to support those who are suggesting that there be a wider set of WGEC categories. And I would actually like us to empower the group to basically work on that set of categories and then come back to the larger group with an indication of those categories. I think that in the discussion of issues item by item, being constrained to a short set that is determined a priori, could make the task much more difficult. So I would like to support those who have recommended, I believe India and others that have recommended the open set to be used. I also would like to sort of indicate that while, I think, this will be of great and indispensable use for us in finalizing any set of recommendations, I also think the work will be very valuable and an outcome from our larger group to the general ways forward for Internet governance. So I think the work should be seen in a larger light of more than just a tool for us, that I would like to suggest that it would be one of our outcomes. Finally, I'd also like to suggest that assuming that this working party will be working in the interim on some schedule and in some manner that they basically give the whole WGEC list -- I have trouble pronouncing it. It sounds like so many other things when people say it. I'm not sure what we're saying. So I'm sticking to the W-G-E-C. I would like to suggest that they give the list of us, the entire group, periodic updates on where they've gotten and how it's going so that we can all keep track of it and anybody that feels their viewpoints are not being represented because they haven't been participating in the smaller group have the opportunity to then jump in somehow and add their voice. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. I'm absolutely sure that you will be part of the correspondence group, and naturally you are on the working group. Now, what is -- I can see no -- no one asking for the floor. So can I conclude that we agreed on the establishment of this correspondence group? We kind of agreed on the draft -- on the rough terms of references. I would like to ask Phil and those who proposed terms of references to work closely with the secretariat during the coffee break finalizing the terms of references. And if you have no other issues on the correspondence group, I think this is a well-deserved coffee break now. And I propose to have it limited to 20 minutes. After 20 minutes, we come back and hopefully we can discuss the terms of references for the correspondence group and eventually we can also finalize the timeline for the work. Thank you. [ Break ] [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good afternoon. Can I ask you to take your seats, please. Good afternoon. Before we start discussing the terms of reference for the corresponding groups, group of -- our working group, let me get back to the date of the next meeting. I had an update from the ITU working group -- council working group's schedule. And it seems to me that the 24th -- the week starting from the 24th is an appropriate time for us to do our third meeting. I know that most of you would like to have a four-day -- or some of you would like to have a four-day meeting. I still have a preference for the five-day meeting. So let me propose the 24th -- the week the 24th through the 28th. And I will ask the secretariat to check the availability of rooms here in the U.N. I am updated that the request has already been placed. A decision will be made as far as the availability of rooms here in mid December. But I hope this is agreeable to all of us. No, it's a room. It is an internal problem. We shall have our meeting. I don't know in which room. Hopefully in this room. I believe it's a relatively good setting. So let's get back to the terms of reference for the correspondence group of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Phil, can you tell us what are the proposed terms of references? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. The terms of reference of the correspondence group is available in paper form at the front of the room if you have not already seen it. Now that we've agreed to terms of reference, Chairman -- [ Laughter ] [ Silence ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: I'm really pleased to see that everybody's for the paperless work. Having said that, electronic copies have been sent out as well so in case you want to fall back to the good old electronic form, then you're welcome. Please continue. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. So you have before you a draft set of terms of reference which I will walk through. I already have some comments and some amendments, so there will be a revised version. But I think if we can capture those as we go along, that will be useful. So starting at Number 1, which is always a very good place to start: The correspondence group will work electronically. If necessary, conference calls will be held; but it is my intention that the main method of working will be e-mails. Two: The correspondence group is open to all stakeholders, as you indicated in your initial presentation this morning, Chair. Three, the correspondence group will provide three update reports to the WGEC Chair and mailing list. Those will be at the end of November, this year; the beginning of January 2014; and the end of January 2014. Again, I think that was a request made by a participant in this meeting earlier this morning. The correspondence group will provide an initial output in the first week of January 2014 and a final document for consideration by this group by the 12th of February, 2014. That then gives you 12 days, Chair, and for our colleagues here to review, comment, criticize, rewrite or do what they wish to do to the document. The correspondence group will review the identified public policy issues into the WGEC list. We created this WGEC list just before coffee. I would say -- and just to make it clear, that the identified public policy issues comes from the revised spreadsheet that has been created and distributed here today. So that would be our starting point. B: The correspondence group will identify where there are activities associated with the issues in that list. It will also identify, if possible, the status of mechanisms and any limitations therein to the mechanisms. It will also attempt to identify the gaps in order to ascertain what type of action is/may be required. The point being there for C and D, Chair, as you will see from point 6, is that we will attempt to do these activities as input into your meeting in February. However, where the issue cannot reach consensus, it will be referred to the -- that issue will be referred back to this group. And I should make it clear, and have one amendment there, that what will be referred back will be the various positions taken on the correspondence group. So if there are five views expressed, you will get five options, Chair. You're more than welcome, sir. The correspondence group -- and I wish to make this explicitly clear -- does not replace the WGEC. We are there to be a tool of the WGEC and nothing more. And just to make it formal, Chair, we say that these have been agreed by your group as of this date so that there are no misunderstandings. I, therefore, put forward these terms of reference for your approval and the approval of colleagues with the two amendments that I have suggested, the one saying that the identified public policy issues in 5A is the spreadsheet that has been developed in this group and that any issue that is not reached among consensus will have the options referred back to the working group. So with those two amendments, Chair, I offer you the document. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil and secretariat. It was a good job. Any comments, observations, remarks? Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: While I think the list is really exhaustive and we really don't need to kind of address issues, therefore, it may not be completely completely complete. However, if there are real -- somebody really has a pressing need to put any issue on it that wasn't before -- but that's not what I'm intending to do because somebody referred -- and I think Avri did -- that it could also be a substantive outcome in some way from the group. And, therefore, the public policy list should not be frozen in any manner. Though, I would greatly advise we don't add too many to it. I was not really sure with Phil's amendment whether the amendment, whether the amendment one referred to this kind of thing or it could be the identified public policy issues. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, Phil? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. The issue becomes if somebody comes to this correspondence group with a new issue, it will not be the correspondence group that decides to add that issue. That must be your group. That is your responsibility, Chair. I'm sorry to say. We will only work with the list. We are a tool of this group. Therefore, if somebody has an issue that is burning a hole in their pocket that they wish to have added to the list of issues that will be considered by the correspondence group, it needs the approval of your group. We are a closed user group in the sense you are giving us a task to work to. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. That's exactly how I think. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chair. First of all, thanks to Phil for working this out. This is very useful. And I think by large we could go along with these terms of reference. Just a minor, minor issue, I think in para 5C talking about identifying, if possible, the status of mechanisms and any limitations therein, we might put different things into the word "mechanism." So we are wondering if we could expand that a little bit to "fora" and "processes." That's just a minor comment. But, otherwise, we feel confident with these terms of reference. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Is my understanding correct that under "mechanism," we may understand as well the different fora? Yes, Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: If the meeting is agreeable, Chair, I will make that amendment. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. Ellen? >> ELLEN BLACKLER: I would support that and add it would also include activities, those kinds of things that business is doing to fill some of the gaps that aren't really a fora. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, U.S. U.S. >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Chairman. Just a question. Where we say the status of mechanisms, how should we read the word "status"? >>CHAIR MAJOR: I understand it -- Phil, please. >>PHIL RUSHTON: My understanding, if I perhaps can offer an opinion, would be -- it would be a narrative describing the activities, the fora, the processes, and the mechanisms associated with any given issue in that list. So it would be as comprehensive as we could make it. I would look to make it, as I say, descriptive rather than judgmental. That would be for the process to be taken here. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. For me, Number 7 is the bottom line; that is, the correspondence group does not replace the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. So we have a clear idea about the terms of references. I think it's mostly acceptable. And I can see you, Parminder. I can see you. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Saudi Arabia raised the fact earlier but since I'm responding to Phil's point, can I go ahead? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yeah. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. There was a discussion earlier about the status being what. And I tried to describe certain elements of it. And I don't think it is a narrative thing. It is a category thing and categories being passed to the WGEC list as well. And I remember there was a lot of support that we need to convert the issues to the requirements of what needs to be done and, therefore, we were categorizing into like: The orphan issues being met but not adequately being met, some institution is fully dealing with it. That kind of categories were the status. And it could be inclusive -- stakeholders' participation inclusive of all governments' participation. There are processes globally which are public policy bodies that are not inclusive of all governments. And there are processes which are not inclusive of stakeholders. So the status is to find out what those mechanisms look like with reference to what then needs to be done which is the mandate of the working group. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to thank Phil for this draft of terms of reference. To make it very easy to me, I'm trying to imagine that I'm now part of this working group and I have these terms of reference and I would see if it is clear to go with these terms of reference. I heard that -- I mean, I understand that there is no possibility to add in the correspondence group any more issues. But, for example, what do we mean exactly by "review and identify the public policy issues in the WGEC list." What exactly -- reviewing in terms of what? I mean, is that -- I mean, we need to be clear when we say "review and identify the public policy," are we going to do an exercise in regards to these lists? Are we going to combine them? I mean, we need to clarify this and then we say "identify where there are activities associated with the issues in the list." Okay. We don't want to say, okay, there is and there is not. I mean, it has to be said also if these activities associated with adequately addressing these issues. I mean, it's not like a matter of answering yes or no, especially -- I'm trying to raise this not to involve in this discussion in the correspondence group. In regards to the "identify, if possible, the status of mechanisms and any limitation therein," I think the idea is to identify, okay, the status of the mechanisms, if it is adequately addressing or not and if there is actually global arrangements to address this issue. It has to be there. I mean, is there global arrangements? Is there a mechanism existing to address this issue? This group has to identify this thing. I would start here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I really want in the future interventions to hear the text, not the criticism, but text you suggest to be included or to exclude. I think we are past the time to give statements. Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Just to clarify my comment earlier, in respect to the distinguished delegate from Saudi Arabia, I didn't say that issues could not be added to the list but if issues are to be added to the list, then it has to be agreed by your committee, Chair, not by the correspondence group. I take note of the comments and clarifications sought on 5B and 5C and would take guidance from this group as to what text they would like to see there so that we could adequately capture the text. I have to say, Chair, that 5A, B, C and D was taken from the text that we're seeing on the screen and were the nice and wonderful words from the Saudi Arabian delegate. So if I'm not captured that right, I do apologize. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. Joy. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Phil, for your good work. I just have three brief points. The first is in relation to point Number 2 of the terms of reference. The word "stakeholders" there, I take it this includes not only stakeholder members of the working group but also observers? I would just like clarification. Secondly, I'm a little troubled by the words in para 5D in relation to what type of action may be required. I think the word action could cause difficulties. I'm thinking, for example, of the United Nations Human Rights Council which is dealing with a number of public policy issues that have intimate related components. And I would find it difficult to imagine this working group might suggest action in relation to any gaps in the Council's mandates. I think it is a suggestion that this working group might focus on that, that there would be some serious concerns with it. My suggestion is that instead of "action," instead of the use of the word "action" there, we might say "recommendations" so that we focus on what recommendations this working group might want. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. As 4.2, "stakeholder" means what it means in the sense of what we mean by it in this working group and what we meant by it when we sent out the questionnaire. As for your remark concerning "action," I fully agree with that. It probably should eventually be changed to "recommendations" or fully left out for consideration by the working group itself because the working group is tasked to give the recommendations. But I leave it up to you. Next on the list. Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Actually my question -- I guess that was -- that's the point that is exactly why I took the microphone. I wanted to ask. As I understood this, this is preliminary and preparatory work and the drafting of recommendations would come after we've concluded this work and would come from the body as a whole. So I guess I'm -- I might just modify D to say "attempt to identify gaps in order to ascertain what might be required" without -- because it could be an action but I think the drafting of recommendations is going to be done in the body as a whole. And I would prefer that the mapping group not start actually getting into drafting recommendations. I think we actually have quite a bit to discuss. And that takes me to an example. When I heard our colleague from Saudi Arabia and also Parminder, I was thinking about under B -- 5B, the mapping group would be talking about activities associated with the issues, looking first to the contribution submissions that have been made but then also based on the participations in the mapping group adding additional documented -- and I would think we need to do that. So if we're looking at the submissions, then everyone has the validation of what's been suggested. But if we are going to -- and I think we need to -- add -- potentially using additional information, what additional activities, we should in the mapping group sort of document where we got that information. So I'm going to use a specific example that was mentioned yesterday. The European Internet Observatory, which is still under development, is an emerging clearinghouse. And it will gather -- so if we were to add that as an emerging activity, I would expect to sort of document where the further information about that could be found. That then let's us continue to build our own shared understanding of the activities that are going on. We are, as the mapping group, I think, to Parminder's point, then going to be discussing about how satisfied we are in order to move on to D. And that will be a gap analysis which I think, again, we're going to have to document. And to Phil's point, we may end up with different documented options that get put forward to the group. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. I really would like to concentrate on the text we have in front of us and to try to finalize it. Probably when we clarify the responsibilities for the group and for the correspondence group and for the working group, we have already made a great step towards finalizing these terms of references. Phil, would you like to answer? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Certainly under A we should put the fact and clarify the fact that additional issues to be added would require the agreement of your group, as we have said. For 5D, the point about what type of actions may be required, the point is well made by delegates. I would say "attempt to identify the gaps in order for recommendations to be drafted by the WGEC" to make it very clear that we are just identifying the gaps. As we keep saying, Number 7 is the bottom line. We do not replace the WGEC. So I think these points are well made. The point as to -- in 5B identify where there are activities, I would say we should cite the source and, indeed, would provide text at the end of B to say "associated with" -- start again, "associated with the issues in the list and cite the source for such identification." Not the best English, I apologize. But I think it does the job. So there are some changes to 5A, B, C and D that have been identified. And, of course, Chair, it is also important to realize that we only have three months to do this work, failure to complete the work of the correspondence group will necessitate a five-day meeting in February because we will have to complete some of the work of the correspondence group in your meeting. However, I will endeavor with my colleague Joy from New Zealand to ensure that that is not the case. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Let me remind you that there's a weekend preceding our meeting in February and there is a weekend after the meeting. Yes, Phil? >>PHIL RUSHTON: I shall seek permission from my wife to attend. [ Laughter ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: So do I. [ Laughter ] Sweden, please. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chair. Very briefly, we can go along with the terms of reference as amended. And, I mean, if we would like to add some additional comfort, maybe we could add to para 7 something along the lines that would not replace the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and will not take any decisions pertaining to the mandate of the working group or something like that, if there is such need. I'm not sure there is such a need. Also just to answer very briefly to the comment mentioned, brought up -- the issue brought up by a colleague from Saudi Arabia, I think when it comes to the mapping, we feel that that should be a very factual thing, factual mapping of where are processes and where are issues are discussed, what are the issues and where are they discussed. But when it comes to the more sort of evaluation of this, the value judgment on whether or not one particular issue is adequately addressed, we think that that is better handled by the group itself as well as the priorities as we mentioned earlier. So that's our view. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. It is my understanding that there's a kind of general agreement with the amendments on the terms of reference. I still have Joy. Virat, you want to take the floor? >>JOY LIDDICOAT: I -- >>VIRAT BHATIA: My points have already been addressed. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. So, Joy, please. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Just to say that my points have been dealt with. The only one, I just didn't hear a clear statement that (indiscernible) my volunteer to assist which seems unfeasible given the size of the task and the short time available. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you. I think, just to make it very clear, as you yourself has indicated, Chair, as with the questionnaire which went to all stakeholders so that this correspondence group is also open to all stakeholders. That is my understanding. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just heard that we can further delay the talking about the adequacy of addressing these issues and not in the correspondence group but in the meeting. If this is the case, I think there is no need for this correspondence group. Yesterday the respected ladies there did a wonderful job by doing this and they can continue by just doing and adding that what are the associated activities, if any, and there is no need to have a correspondence group if they are not going to tackle each of these policy issues and see if there is global arrangements to address them or not. And if it's adequately addressing them or not by either to find the gaps and then do the required action as a correspondence group which will come to your meeting then it will come out as recommendations as the meeting agrees later on. But if there is no task to go over this, I think we can just continue without a correspondence group. And before we approve this terms of reference, we -- if there is any amendments, we would like to see it in writing before we adopt this terms of reference. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. It is my understanding that the group will do its work in view of proposing to the working group recommendations or some -- some input for the recommendations. So, in fact, it is going to be extremely useful for the -- for the working group itself. As for the amendments in the written form, probably it can be done very quickly. But I think it has been made clear and there was -- I couldn't really hear many dissenting comments on the terms of references, so I had a feeling that we kind of agreed on these terms with the amendments. Iran, please. >>IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm seeking a point of clarification. I heard that this correspondence group is open to all stakeholders out of these -- I mean this group, just wanted to hear it from you, since this correspondent group is a part of the WGEC I don't think it's necessary to open it to all the stakeholders. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Iran. It was my idea to follow the way we have been working up until now, and I do intend to continue this way. We had received inputs from all stakeholder groups, which seem to be very useful, and we have taken them on board to discuss them, so I can see no reason why we can't continue this way. It made our work richer. It made our deliberations more wider, so I think this is the way to go forward. And I think most of the members of the group do agree to that. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I think I need to intervene. I was not planning to intervene, but I think it is required, I think, to make a few points. The first and the foremost is this working group has a diverse composition. There are member states, there are representatives of the private sector, the civil society. I think there are other groups, also. Now, if we embark upon a part of reaching a particular decision or recommendation, it was -- it was useful to receive inputs. I realize that during the first (indiscernible) if you want to call it. But the challenge here is every time we put out a -- a questionnaire or a set of issues, and if you want to go to the larger stakeholder process approach, we have no difficulties. But then we only have representatives in this working group precisely for this reason. And if they wish to go in their own individual capacity, let's say the private sector wish to go within themselves, they could further disseminate among their members and collect inputs but there are representatives to this working group. The purpose will be defeated if we every time -- and we cannot embark on this process every time, and the end result would be another 500 pages a compilation and then do what? I'm sorry to pose these very direct questions, but we need to have some brevity in what we are doing. And you rightly observed that we know the issues. We know the issues, and we are now trying to do a mapping exercise. I think it's no harm if we could define that the respective groups could in turn, in their own right, because there are representatives of that particular group of the stakeholders, could collect inputs and give it to the correspondence group. That would be an easy approach, rather than the correspondence group reaching out to all stakeholders and coming up with the bulk of information which we do not know where to head thereafter. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Can I have some text for -- to support your proposal? >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. The correspondence -- the correspondence group will be open to the members of the working group. In fact, we don't need one to -- we don't actually meant for the working group. It's a correspondence group of the working group. Which is required to -- which internally -- I mean, in its capacity they could seek other members' views. They're most welcome to do it. But within themselves, they reach certain conclusions or certain observations which is brought to the larger group. Thank you, sir. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is very important for us to have a very clear understanding of what this correspondence group is aimed to achieve. I don't see the work coming from this correspondence group as having, let's say, the kind of more political nature of or policy stated that is expected from this working group as a whole. I see the output of the correspondence group as a technical instrument, a tool for our work. And personally -- and I have made a point previously that personally I'm not feeling entitled to participate because I lack the expertise to engage in some of the issues. I think it is in our interest to have the best available expertise contributing to give out a very clear picture of where we stand with regard to each issue, what are the processes associated. I would be a little bit concerned if we maybe restrict the ability of people to contribute because we may be lacking some kind of input that might be necessary. And then, this will come up to the larger group and we will make the appropriate decisions as -- because we have the mandate, not the wider stakeholder community. But I think if we can it would -- see this as an input for our work, and then, of course, as a working group we have a particular mandate and we have the composition agreed that we should do it. I think maybe that could be a way out of -- of this. Again, I think the composition of this working group, I'm not sure if we have among us as complete expertise to cover all the areas and come up with all the -- or what I said maybe the X-ray of the situation. Then this will be an instrument for us as -- as the magical group to propose some kind of intervention. Thank you very much. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. Andres. >>ANDRES PIAZZA: Yeah, thank you very much. With regard to what the distinguished colleague of India was proposing, I guess I don't know which of the opinions of the rest of the group, the members of the group, but if we have that question was open to every stakeholder and we have observers that can be on site and also in the remote participation channels with access to the information available. And also we -- the possibility of providing inputs. And then we accept those observers to be able (indiscernible), for example, the mapping exercise and then the whole purpose of the working group and our -- of course, our philosophy should be -- should keep open. And I understand what Brazil says regarding the goals of the correspondence group. And to be honest, I would like to be -- I would prefer to have more clarity also regarding the goals of the correspondence group as well. But I think we shouldn't go back to discussion if -- that -- if the working group should be open or not because I guess at least I have -- I haven't seen any reason why we should go back there. We should have -- we already established that we want it to be open, right? Or not. I don't know. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Jimson. >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you very much, Chair. While I've been ruminating, I made a point and I would like to propose this text, if possible. With regard to item 2 of the terms of reference, the correspondence group is open to all WGEC stakeholders and accredited observers. So this correspondence group is of the working group, as the distinguished delegate from India underlined, and Iran. So this is what I would like to propose, the correspondence group is open to all WGEC stakeholders and accredited observers. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: I'm unmuting myself, so apologies for the pause. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to speak with those who are discussing the correspondence group being open and very much open in the same way that these meetings have indeed been open. And so I think it's very appropriate that we do that. I also want to point out that one of the reasons I believe that we were doing this correspondence group is because we felt that this was very essential work, that it was work that was a continuation of the process that came out of the comments we received from the wider stakeholder group community, and that it was work that we did not want to put in line for this particular committee, this particular group, but wanted it to be done in parallel. So I think it's very important that this group be able to do its work, to be able to reach out for the experience and other help that's needed. We see how much the observers have already contributed to this effort. We wouldn't be as close as we are now, I believe, without their incredible efforts, their overnight work, their over lunch work, and all of that. So I think we have to recognize that and keep that, that in. And in terms of this group being able to make evaluations, I think any initial evaluations that they may make are an aid to our work but are something that we, as a group, would be able to take and discuss. As Phil said in his discussion on all this, nothing they do is final. Everything they do is recommendations to this group as to how to proceed further. So I think any of the evaluation they make, whether it's on things like status, on things like adequacy of the mechanisms or the processes, I think we recognize that that is all work that we will need to review as a group and be able to modify and amend as necessary before taking this document forward. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. When we started the discussion about the participation of stakeholders the concern I heard was a very practical one from India and it was the eventual output -- the volume of the eventual output. And for me, it's a very reasonable argument. Probably we want to deal with documents which we can handle. Now, I'm turning to Phil, who has volunteered to this position. Can you give us some assurance that the volume of the output will be of a size which is understandable by humans? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. You do not ask for much. [ Laughter ] On a serious point, Chair, you want something by the 12th of February that is not an activity that we should treat lightly. I can empathize with the distinguished delegate from India about the volume of work. If we cast our minds back to the first meeting, a similar concern was expressed about the number of questionnaires that we would receive in response to making that open. I think we received 70 questionnaires and that was manageable. We have the public policy issues list that we started, we are going to go through and further categorize them against the WGEC list as opposed to the WGIG list -- somebody ought to change the acronyms. I think that it will be manageable. I do not anticipate people coming in with vast volumes of work. I could be wrong, but I think people actually maybe will provide the information going forward according to the process. I think it is -- if there is a large volume of work as a result of opening this up, I think that will make your task and the task of this group more rich in terms of the information that it has in front of it. And in that terms we will need five full days. But I think it is -- we are duty-bound, given the mandate that we have from the U.N. General Assembly, to do as good a job as we possibly can. And if that is volumes of information -- which I have to say I do not anticipate, given that we only have three months in which to gather this, so it's publication of, join our group, provide the information, collate the information -- it's not going to happen. But I think we shouldn't put barriers in the way in order for people to contribute if they have a desire, a wish, or indeed the information to do so. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. Well, let's keep the discussion on the level of -- on practicalities, and we have an assurance from the practical approach and basically that is the concern we all have. I didn't have any intervention concerning the kind of political considerations. So I would like to stop the debate on the terms of references. I'm really sorry for those who want to take the floor, but I think we have covered all issues, and the real issue is how we can move forward as a group ourselves. And that is the main thing. We have a team to facilitate our work, our next meeting. We have a promise that it will be a document which can be handled by us, which will have our work, and for me that is, you know -- so I would propose now for you to approve the modified terms of references as they are. So Saudi Arabia wants to take the floor, please. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said earlier, we want to see it in a text so we know exactly what are these terms of reference. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So let me propose the following, we come back after lunch and the text will be available. I propose a five-minute discussion on the text. A very precise discussion. If there -- if there are parts you don't like, you propose something else and we proceed. But there's a general agreement here in the room, what I can feel, that there's a need for this group, for the correspondence group, there's a need for the exercise. The exercise will result in proposals which we can take up on board and it will facilitate our work. Is it agreeable? Yes, Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. I will sit down with the Secretariat and get the text amended. We will circulate that to the mailing list rather than paper-based. I will be back in this room 30 minutes prior to the start of your meeting, should anybody have any comments or questions, so that we can further amend or make the proposals to amend so that we can meet your five-minute deadline. So I shall be back in here at half past 2:00 with people having any comments or questions. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. Last remark before we break, as I mentioned in the morning, I would like to proceed with the framework of our recommendations, so I would like from the proposal for the framework some text, and I would like to have some rudimentary recommendations for Group 4 and 5. If there are members who would like to proceed in this way, I would like to have the text as well. And in this spirit I wish you bon appetite and see you back at 3:00. [ Lunch Break ] [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good afternoon. Thank you for taking your seats. And I would like to thank you also for the hard work you did during lunchtime, those of you who have had discussions. And I understand that there are -- there's a proposal for the mandate of the correspondence group. I just want to remind you that before lunch break, we had a proposal which was amended. And now I would like to see the final result of the consultations. Can I ask Phil? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. Indeed the revised text, as we discussed this morning, was posted early in the lunch hour. So I thank the secretariat for their support in that process. As I also said prior to lunch, I was in this room from half past 2:00 to take comments on the amended text, and I have received some amendments to that text. So I will read those out, if you will allow me, Chair. So under 5A, there is a word to be inserted. And it says "now review the identified international public policy issues." So the word "international" has been proposed to be inserted. There is alternate text to B. It says -- excuse me. Excuse me -- "list where there are existing international mechanisms addressing the issues in the list." I will repeat again: "List where there are existing international mechanisms addressing the issues in the list." A proposal has been brought forward as an alternative to C, which is: "Identify the status of mechanisms, if any, whether they are addressing the issues." So C would now read: "Identify the status of mechanisms, if any, whether they are addressing the issues." And then in D, again, insertion after the term "gaps," it would say "attempt to identify the gaps and required action in order to ascertain." So the three words "and required action" have been proposed to be inserted, Chair. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. I have a general remark. I don't really want to see anything in the terms of reference which is taking over from the mandate of this group. The correspondence group is to have the work, not to replace, not to override the work of this working group. So any action is within the mandate of this group. I can see Marilyn. But I think, Parminder, you were first. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you. Chair, I would have to see this rewritten, but I have an immediate concern about limiting our work to using the word "international" rather than "Internet." I think our work is focused on Internet issues. And I want to be careful that we don't find ourselves -- and I'm just going to use an example. I think that some of the issues identified by those from civil society and others who were raising concerns from developing countries might -- if we're using "international," I think we may be missing the fact that we need to be -- in some cases, there will be a need to have a regional recognition of an issue that might be arising. So I would actually prefer that we use the word "Internet" rather than restricting it by using the word "international." >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. First, I would respond to Marilyn's proposal and I see the mention of enhanced cooperation in Tunis Agenda clearly refers to international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. And I think that is our mandate, and we should stick to our mandate. Otherwise, we will go too diffuse and the idea is to see what are the gaps in international Internet-related public policies and, if there are gaps, what to do about it. The prior issue on which I wanted to comment was about the composition of the group. I am for extending all kinds of outreaches to all levels and keeping it open. And if you wish to go for another round of information seeking, I'm very happy to have that because it will be more focused information. My concern is that out of four, probably different in the new amended text, but more or less still I'm talking from the old text are the four activities or mandates of the group, three are evaluative. They consist of making a judgment. Now, collection of information -- and this group being a repository or recipient of information from all quarters is one kind of activity and that should be and can be very open. I'm not sure how a huge group would be taking evaluative judgments. And my concern is entirely practical, that it won't happen and we will be back in the group with a list without being able to close the gaps which I thought was the primary purpose of making a small group; that when we come back, there's more clarity about certain judgments around different gaps and then we can work quickly. And if we are not able to assemble an effective group, we would not be able to do those evaluative functions. And that's the concern, if we can separate information sourcing from the evaluative aspects of this group and organize the group in a manner which it is effective to do both the works properly. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: As I mentioned earlier, the mandate of the working group hasn't changed. So in case we are thinking in terms much actions, recommendations or evaluations, it is within the mandate of the working group, not within the mandate of the correspondence group. I just wanted to make it clear. In case you have doubts, I will put it down in my report and probably we can be done with that. Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My intervention is more or less in the same sense of your last intervention. I see the outcome of this correspondence group as being a factual document that will assist us as a working group to move ahead and provide and elaborate recommendations and make an analysis on this. So I think this is important because the contributions that are expected from to be us, from an expanded group of stakeholders, I think, as I have said before, I think we benefit to have enough expertise and information coming from other parties. But those contributions should not entail analysis or lengthy elaborations on the issues. I think we are expecting also very factual information, very focus-oriented inputs. I think this must be made clear. Otherwise, we'll end up, the coordinator, with extensive pieces of paper from which he will have to pick what is relevant. What is relevant here are the factual information, one that will allow us to have a clear view, an x-ray, but not an analysis of this. As you have indicated, Mr. Chair, we are not expecting proposals of actions, recommendations, just this picture upon which this working group will work. This is our understanding. I think that might be the understanding of the room. Otherwise, it should be specified because it will assist the working group in its preparation. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. I strongly urge you to follow the wise advice from Brazil, and let's move forward. We may spend half of the night here discussing words in the terms of references for the correspondence group, which is a technical group, and which you will provide input to us and it is up to us to evaluate, to give proposals to recommendations. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. And I wish to thank Phil for certain amendments which he proposed. I think they're very valid amendments which have slightly made the task more focused, number one. Secondly, to look at what Marilyn was saying about "Internet," the way to fix this is we strictly go by what's said in the Tunis Agenda. If we could add three words in 5A, "international public policy issues pertaining to Internet," I think that is what the text is actually. So then they were talking of Internet and again international public policy issues. And in any case, our objective is core towards such policies only and also to identify whether there is a role at the international level, not at the national level, because the task of this group is to look at that particular dimension. And the second one which is, again -- I don't want to open this discussion, but Jimson had made one very important amendment before our lunch break in para 2. Are we looking at it or are we going to shelve that? I just want to know that. Of course, it is clear it is not reflected so it is not there. But I thought that was a fairly good suggestion. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. Before we went to lunch, I really urged you, especially governments, to participate in the work of this correspondence group. So I rather concentrate on these issues than on the particular words. The sense of this correspondence group is to provide information to our group. And if governments do participate, I think we have a good hope to come up with recommendations which are beneficial for the governments. I can see Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. Very briefly, we support what was said by the Brazilian ambassador. We think this should be a very factual tool that we can continue to work on and base our work on. And the only small comment that we have in that regard is that we think that it should not be within the mandate of this correspondence group to evaluate whether or not something has been adequately addressed or not addressed in a specific fora, process, or mechanism. Otherwise, we are very thankful to the hard work that Phil has put into this and with contributions from all colleagues. And we think we can work on this basis. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Phil? Saudi Arabia, you want to take the floor? Virat after Phil, Japan, and United States. And I would like to close the discussion because I think that we are very, very close and probably in the last two hours we should do some real work. I'm really sorry to say that. You have been doing a great job up to now. The discussions were extremely good. I really enjoy them. And we are getting closer to it. But after deliberation of the terms of references, I would like to have some kind of framework for the recommendations on one hand and eventually if some members think that they could offer some recommendations, then I would like to see them. So, Phil, please. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Just two comments, one to respond to the distinguished delegate from India. I would like to claim credit for the words but, unfortunately, I cannot. I'm merely the scribe. The proposed changes came from my distinguished colleagues from Saudi Arabia in the 30 minutes I had set aside. So if there is credit to be given to the terms used, please direct them to my colleagues from Saudi Arabia. The other issue -- and it goes back to something that you said, Chair, and to the Ambassador from Brazil which is in 13 weeks -- and I keep emphasizing 13 weeks -- there is going to be no effort to judge anything. It is merely factual. I do not have time to sit down and evaluate what I hope will be input. And I hope you will reflect that in your minutes, Chair, that all I will do, along with colleagues who participate, is reflect back into your group the facts that we are given. Where there is agreement on the facts, great. Where there is no agreement on the facts, then alternate views as expressed on the correspondence group will be presented to this group to discuss and debate. I do not intend to get into the middle of an argument. That is not my intention, believe me. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Very grateful for that. Thank you. So you left me in the middle. [ Laughter ] Okay. I can see United States and Japan and then probably we can close. >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Chairman. Don't want to -- to take the time simply to come in to support your approach, to agree with those who see the correspondence -- the correspondence group as a fact-finding group, I think for the purposes, as was said, to have an x-ray of progress currently being made. We agree with the comments that Sweden made. There's no rendering of judgment by this correspondence group. That is the purview, that is the work of this group. So, thank you, Chairman. We support the approach. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Japan? >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We deeply appreciate the hard work to prepare the correspondence group. And Japan would like to support the work of the correspondence group and would like to be a member of this correspondence group and cooperative work of the correspondence group. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Japan. Very grateful for that, especially for the last part that you would like to be part of it. I encourage again all governments to be part of it. Having said that, can I take the terms of reference as accepted by this group? Thank you. Oh, Saudi Arabia, sorry. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What exactly -- I mean, is it the way it's presented right now? Because we have two Bs, two Cs. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I go back to Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: That was going to be my question to you, Chair. I presented amendments to -- >>CHAIR MAJOR: In that case, we accept the amendments. We clean up the text and we accept the amendments. Yes? >> VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Chairman. If we are accepting amendments, then 5D now requires the group to make -- suggest actions, which is -- that's the corrected text. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, I understand. Good point. >> VIRAT BHATIA: Which is the job of the larger group. This was debated extensively. And the word "action" was dropped because it is a synonym for "recommendations" or "towards recommendations." >>CHAIR MAJOR: Can you suggest text? >> VIRAT BHATIA: We should keep the original text. I just had one more point. >>CHAIR MAJOR: As I indicated, it is in the mandate of this group to make recommendations, to make judgments, evaluations. It's not in the mandate of the correspondence group, so there's no need according to the mandate of this group to delegate any of these actions. It is us who are going to do it. Yes, please, continue. >>VIRAT BHATIA: The second point that I had is with regards to 5B where the word "identify" has been replaced with "list," I just want to clarify and understand that because if "list" means just putting the name of an association or a body, then that would be insufficient because for the larger group to be able to make a call on the substantive contributions of that group, then it can't be just listing. It will have to be descriptive. So if listing does not mean restricting a descriptive notion -- because the contribution and the progress can be identified only after reading a descriptive notion. And if that's not on because it is the word "list" which is just reference to a name or an abbreviation, that, I believe, will be insufficient even for the group to get their document out to us. So either we agree that "list" doesn't mean just the name or we go back to identifying we're okay with either one so long as we have an agreement and understanding. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But if there is -- I mean, if there is no meat or an output that will help us, why establish this group, if we are just going to have informative? If we are only getting informative, it will be more appropriate, more balanced, especially with the Item 2 there, to do the same thing we did with the questionnaire. We formulate these questions, send it as a questionnaire, get the replies, then the working group will decide. But if you are going to have a correspondence group just for collecting information, why waste the time? Just formulate it as questions, send it as a questionnaire. And it will be more balanced that all stakeholders will be -- get the chance to reply and that's it. And especially when I say if you're going to do the required action or a proposal. So you are limiting me to just say, okay, there is a mechanism and I speak about that mechanism? I cannot even say that mechanism is not appropriate? That mechanism is not international mechanism? That mechanism is not an intergovernmental mechanism? I mean, you cannot just direct me to one corner and I just follow that based on the questions. If the correspondence group is not going to do evaluative or to propose something, put them as a question, send them as a questionnaire, and save the time, I mean, for the correspondence group members. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Nigeria. >>NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the floor. I have to -- I shall thank you for the great job for the comments here. Everything is (indiscernible). They actually address so much what has been happening as part of the discourse. So that effect, I would like to be included as a member among the correspondence group. I want to be a part of the process to be helpful. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. So right now we have two Bs and two Cs, if I'm not mistaken. Any proposal how to move forward? Yeah. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Based on Tunis Agenda and from there we get the enhanced cooperation, when we say "enhanced cooperation associated with framework or mechanisms," and that's based on Tunis Agenda, paragraph 60 -- I mean, either 68 or 69, so the most appropriate thing is to say "mechanisms or framework" because that's the thing that relates to the enhanced cooperation. Existing activities, we can have so many existing activities but it is not in the code of the enhanced cooperation, international -- >>CHAIR MAJOR: Is "framework" acceptable to the group? That's what you want, "mechanism and framework"? >>SAUDI ARABIA: Tunis Agenda says "mechanisms" in paragraph 60, if I'm not mistaken. Yes. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. The second B in blue. There was a concern about the first list in point B in blue. Can you clarify what you mean by list? I think the proposal came from you. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Yes. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So what do you mean by "list" with respect to the intervention of Virat? >>SAUDI ARABIA: Because if we say "identify," it will be judgmental. You identify something. Should I agree with it or not? But it's just to give me something that's already established, listed to me. This is a corresponding group, okay. We need answers in one line, two lines, one paragraph, not five pages to identify something that you see as an international mechanism or a framework. It is either yes or no. Is there a mechanism? Yes. Put the name of it. That's why we said "list." >>CHAIR MAJOR: Sweden? >>SWEDEN: Thank you. First of all, if you could indulge a little bit the text. Unfortunately, my eyes are not so sharp. Just to comment on the point made about analysis, analyze the material versus just mapping, I think it still has a lot of value to do the mapping. And I think it's a big difference between mapping and what we need to do sorting different issues in different categories, for example, and identifying where, in which processes, in what mechanisms, so -- in what fora they're addressed and a questionnaire. I think the questionnaire, we have already done that; and it has been really useful. We have connected in that way a broad range of views on this issues. But I think the very nature of what we are trying to do now to move the work forward is quite different from what we can do with the questionnaire. So we think it's a lot of added value. And I've heard from a lot of colleagues here that actually doing this kind of mapping to have a good factual base to have a more informed discussion when we are going to move forward towards formulating recommendations has a lot of added value. So we don't really see the point made that this shouldn't be of any added value and that we should repeat the exercise that we have already done when it comes to the questionnaire. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Andres. >>ANDRES PIAZZA: Thank you very much, Chair. I guess the distinguished colleague of Sweden already took many of my points, so I want to agree with him. And I want also to congratulate Phil and the rest of the group, too, for the progress made and also say that I want to be available for the corresponding group, too, in the next month. So I want to be listed. Thank you very much. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I believe practically all the working group may volunteer. I can see no problem about that. So I just once again encourage you to do that. Virat, please. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chairman, on the point of listing versus identify, the notion that a one-line or two-line answer can be given, as has been suggested by the distinguished delegate of Saudi Arabia, the concern that we have with that is the following: And I'll illustrate that with an example. For example, if the discussion is about human rights and Internet and IGF was listed as a fora and it was just listed IGF, then that's actually leaving it to everybody's judgment on what IGF does. On the other hand, when the group is doing the research and getting information, if there was a list that 18 sessions across the last nine years have occurred, including one main session, and so many participants have spoken, this is the kind of text available, we expect that to come up, when that is substantively different while making a judgment on whether the IGF is an effective international mechanism for enhanced cooperation where the issue of human rights and Internet is concerned. And I think that's -- that's the kind of information that this group is looking for. And I think that's the kind of information that will come, both from the filings that have already been made by the 60-plus participants and if you were to open this further, then others would substantiate it. So the quality of work that will come in will obviously make it tedious for us to go through some more papers, but we will make a much better qualitative judgment based on the evidence that would be provided. And that is the reason why I suppose it would help to be descriptive rather than one or two lines responses back. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Virat. As you may know, I am also involved in the Radio Advisory Group of the ITU, I'm the vice chair, and as the vice chair I was chairing a correspondence group on the improvements of the VR, this is the Radiocommunication Bureau of Information Systems. We have gone through a kind of similar debate about the mandate of the group and after they settled the issue of mandate there was a great enthusiasm from the members of the Radio Advisory Group to participate. Can anyone tell me how many people participated out of 60-plus? Three. In addition to -- two in addition to myself. But the bulk of the work had to be by me. And I took all the blame, because you can't do a good job. There's no way you can do a good job. And those of you who are familiar with the ITU know that. So please, don't insist because we are going to end up having poor Phil doing it on his own, and while I'm too pessimistic but I hope some of us will help him and some of us who made commitments will really contribute. But I believe, let's stop now the discussion here, try to stick to some -- some of the formulation. Believe me, it's almost irrelevant, at the end of the day, what we agree on here. Because the work we are going to have is the more important one. So I really ask you to approve whatever we have and let's move forward. It is going to be a very useful thing for us as a group, and we will be very grateful to Phil and a few others who are going to contribute. And I really hope there will be more than two, as was in my case. Thank you. Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Just to save myself the embarrassment in February, Chair, unless there is input, I will do nothing. [ Laughter ] So it is up to others to contribute. I'm sure that will not be the case. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was not going to intervene but just to agree with one point that was raised by Saudi Arabia, that if the final outcome of the group would be thinking to identify, at least without any kind of judgment recommendation, that would be -- not would be in favor of that. But if it is an intermediate step, as a tool to assist us in a second stage then to have -- to provide for analysis on this. So I think the way you are proposing is just okay. There is one point of clarification I would like to ask you because in both of these refers to the status of mechanisms. What is exactly meant by the status? Is it -- I don't understand what is the concept of the status? Is it something that is apparent to you, something that is -- what -- what is the criteria to judge the status? I'd like to have some more clarity on this, please. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Valid question. Before I give the floor to India, can the originators of this brilliant idea, this spreadsheet, clarify the status, meaning of the status. Parminder, are you able to do that? >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Yeah. After disclaiming brilliance, I can try to say what it was supposed to mean, and it was supposed to mean along with a (indiscernible) that was sent to the list which was about four or five lists, we will try to judge the mechanism like it is validity with the subject, it is (indiscernible) with the subject. So there's a certain list which would be used and it has a proposed list. Otherwise all kinds of judgments, and we can -- I think that work can be left to Phil to have four or five categories, which have been discussed since the morning, about what are we talking about, what kind of judgments we are putting on the mechanism. Whether it is international, whether it is dealing with the subject entirely or partially, and that kind of categories. But yes, it is a judgment, but we can keep it closed by giving four or five, six exhaustive options. >>CHAIR MAJOR: It is my understanding that the group intends to have an intermediate -- intermediate report by the end of November, and most likely in January, and we'll have time to comment on that. So basically if we are in disagreement with something, probably we can contribute the same way. And it is also up to us what we accept and what we don't accept. And we can allow the group to make mistakes. I know that they are not allowed to, but still, I believe they will make mistakes, they will make errors, and we have to be very lenient. India, please. And I believe I would like you to be the last one. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I thought Phil should be worrying about which, we should take the blue or the black. You have two choices. >> I prefer the blue. >>INDIA: You prefer the blue. Okay. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: But what is more important for me, the number of people contributing. And don't forget that. Can we go? We delete the black and retain the blue. Sweden? >>SWEDEN: Thank you. Well, just to make clear, I think the blue is the one that is giving this group a mandate to evaluate its existing mechanisms, as it's phrased, or addressing the issues in the least. So we would have preferred the black one, and I think that is what I have heard a lot from the room. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I really understand your concerns, but believe me, it's of no significance. I'm really sorry to say that we shall see from the number of contributions. I may be too pessimistic as opposed to our assignment really because I'm generally an optimistic person, but from my experience I'm -- I believe that the main thing is -- just sets the working group -- the correspondence group and let it work. Yes, Virat. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Chairman, can we suggest a compromise where we can go with blue with the exception of listing to be clarified to be descriptive or support the point made by Sweden, sort of go through identify and then take away the required action. That certainly is a -- is a problem. So if you can take those two out, then we can go with blue, it can work. [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >> We took away "required action"? Okay, fine. >>CHAIR MAJOR: There's no action to be taken. There's no "required action." >>VIRAT BHATIA: The only point left is -- >>CHAIR MAJOR: So can you please reflect -- [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Retain blue? Okay. Delete black. [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: The other way around? Virat -- >>VIRAT BHATIA: There's one indication of I just -- I read this when you say, list the existing -- sorry, this is a bit difficult to read for me. List what the existing international mechanisms addressing the list means, nearly half or more of the list that has been prepared and provided by the 60 or inputs are going to be wiped out of the discussion, if -- I mean, we should either say national/international or not have international because this means half the work that's been done, or maybe more than half of the work that has been done, could be wiped out. Just a suggestion for the room to consider. So I'm suggesting either international and national or remove international. [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: You want to take the floor? Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: I just want to mention to colleagues that that was why I intervened before. We sent out a questionnaire with 18 questions in it and in good faith and we worked very hard on that questionnaire, as I recall. I think some of you actually left me unsupervised for an hour or two until midnight or something, but we worked very hard on that questionnaire, as we all recall. We sent it out and then we all worked in good faith to get people to fill it in. And the people who filled it in, a large number of them, the majority of the responses came from governments. I think there's a real problem if we restrict our analysis now in a way that will not take that input into account. If we could go back to -- I share the concern that Virat Bhatia has raised that the word "list" could end up with just a narrow term that people wouldn't even understand. If I listed APWG or MAAWG, M-A-A-W-G, most people in this room wouldn't know what that is but it's the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group which does a huge amount of work on spam and that would be relevant information. So I'm hoping that we'll be flexible but not get multiple pages, just a short description. But the thing I'm most concerned about in B is, whatever the word is, "list" existing mechanisms addressing Internet public policy. I -- isn't that what we asked people to do, to respond to. And how do we do the analysis if we do not include the kinds of mechanisms and framework -- I went back and looked at the Tunis Agenda and I believe it says frameworks or mechanisms, if required. But let's say the concern here is we need to be able to include the scope of the questionnaire that we distributed. It is really unfair to those people who we asked to contribute if we do not take their input into account. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. And it's also against our intentions. Parminder and India. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: I think we have a duty towards all people who have given inputs, but we also have a duty, which is quite friendly, to the UNGA which gave us a mandate. The mandate is here, and we have to respond to the mandate. It is good to work with a big broad based pyramid, but you have to go towards the tip which is the recommendations which are in accordance with the mandate. And if you had to go towards the tip, we need to focus on our mandate which is very clear about enhanced cooperation which is defined as pertaining to international public policy issues. That's what the mandate is. So now defeatists say that because there are responses of certain kinds we need to know -- our recommendation has to be based on that. That's a good material for us to understand the issues, but we need to work on the mandate. And the mandate is very clear, it's about international public policy issues. I don't understand what we would be doing about talking about what, for example, India is doing on (indiscernible) diversity on the Internet within India. That's not what we can put in our recommendations. So we want to waste time of the group spending time talking again about those kind of issues when we are now supposed to be giving recommendations outside the mandate is my concern. Therefore, the international public policy issues and international mechanisms is precisely now trying to get narrowed down to what we are supposed to respond to. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I think we've been constantly compelled to make interventions but at one stage you are gaveled with talking about moving forward but again, it's a very fundamental issue. Given the mandate of this group, I think we need to bear in mind that the way in which even the Tunis Agenda has evolved in Paris with 60, 61, they talked about an adequacy of mechanisms of frameworks for what? For the international public policy issues. Now, there could be a mechanism at the national level which is dealing with a possible international public policy issue, but that is not the relevance or the mandate of this group to identify. We're looking at an international mechanism, if we -- quite possible in the middle of the discussion we may say well, it's already clear, that's a different story. But at this point in time we need to look at those international mechanisms. And that is the spirit with which we are all in this room. So let's -- I have no problem in listing all that, but the only thing is you go further and we'll have a much larger database and then we'll have to sift through the same process, the process through which you're going and stick only to the international issues rather than the national issues. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, as a matter of fact, I do trust the correspondence group to make appropriate judgments whether it's relevant or not relevant, and I really trust them, since they are also members of this group, to come up with a final document which will be -- which we will be able to handle in the proper way. And so I tell you, I don't really want to spend much time on that. We are just going around and around and we are just postponing to do real work. I'm really sorry to say that. Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry to prolong the agony. But I am now, as one of the co-conveners, slightly confused. I am told on the one hand I should make no judgment, there should be only factual information. Now I am being asked to make a judgment on whether or not something is international or national. I think the bottom line is, if the information comes in, I will put it into a form that is agreed to by the correspondence group and you, too, will have to share my pain, Chair. I am sorry to say this. I will buy you a nice cup of coffee afterwards. But I will make no judgment. This -- I reiterate for the fourth time, this correspondence group is merely a tool for the working group. It is the working group's role, expertise, to make the judgments. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. I will ask you for the coffee a bit later. Let me propose the following thing: The output of this correspondence group will be a Chair's document and it will be my responsibility to take and make any judgment which I think is appropriate. Is it acceptable? Okay. [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: You want to take the floor, observer? I have taken the decision over. >>MATTHEW SHEARS: If I may, Chair. Matthew Shears of CDT. Part of the mandate of this working group is to seek, compile, and review inputs. If we're moving to a terms of reference -- and I apologize for prolonging this further but I do feel this has to be said -- if we're moving to a terms of reference that focuses on mechanisms, international mechanisms as some have inserted in here, rather than fora and other activities, we are effectively removing a considerable portion of the work that should be done as part of that review process. And it is quite astonishing to me that we have 60 or so inputs to this process and now we're saying that most of those inputs actually don't meet some kind of new set of criteria. They have not been reviewed. Those issues should be reviewed, as a part of this process. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Just let me repeat, I expect an output from the group which will be my document, and I will make the judgments. Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I -- as I see it, I think the -- this correspondence group is still not -- is fully consistent with the mandate we have. I think actually in spelling out the questions we have been fully respectful of all input received. I think we initially had this lengthy list of over 400 contributions, collecting all of the views from all participants on the relevant issues to be examined. So what we are trying to do to organize our work to make it workable for us is to request for an input. What is the input? On the basis of these contributions we have, we want to have a document relating these to saying whether those issues that were identified by submissions that were obviously related to something that is theirs, who is doing what, I think this is something that we find -- we found as a group properly to have in order to move forward. But this is, to my view, fully consistent with the fact that we are being respectful of the submissions that we have received and trying to relate to them. But making it into a way that is workable for us, otherwise either we cannot make out the work that was mandated to this group. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. I will reflect the results of this discussion in my report, and I suggest we move forward. We have two hours to go. I closed -- I closed the debate. I would like to move forward, and I would like to ask India if you have any proposal for the framework for our recommendations? >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. At the outset I must say that I have not really been able to come up with a very serious framework, but something which I attempted which would -- would be in the form of what were the broad elements of the report rather than put together language at this stage. So that is my -- this is based on the discussion that we had and the similar reports that have been produced by the working groups. If you permit me, Chair, I just will highlight some of the elements of it rather than going into the specific details because it will be -- it would be quite unfair to draw a conclusion when we are not even started making serious assessments about various contributions that we have received. With that admission, Chair, I think firstly, the way we look at this, we could have a kind of introduction to the report which would talk about the mandate that has been given to this working group by the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 67/195. With a specific recommendation made -- or recommendations to be made on how to fully implement the mandate of the enhanced cooperation as contained in the Tunis Agenda and how we went about doing this process, the modis operandi which the working group has chosen and the meetings that have been set up and how we arrived at the questionnaire. So this could be captured in the body of the report in the form of an introduction. And of course, today's development which is talking about this -- talking about the correspondence group which has been tasked with a very sensitive assignment of -- I do not fully agree with saying it is not just reporting of what has been given but I think it's a very sensitive job of even to put together those ideas and presenting it as one particular input to the working group. And based on -- the next part of the report could be looking at what is the broad approach that we want to take on this. The group seems to have taken a clear recognition that there are a large number of issues above the Internet and also on the use of the Internet that affect most of the people who have access to it and also looked at areas where people who have no access to it and how to perhaps look at addressing those issues. Secondly, there are also issues which needed a holistic examination on the use of Internet because it -- one way or another it will touch upon the concept of enhanced cooperation. So that would be the next element. But we also have seen some acknowledgment in the room, at least some delegations have said that there are issues that are to be dealt with by existing mechanisms and then others who said that while there is still no home for some of the issues, that when they say issues they're talking about the international public policy issues pertaining to Internet, I think. Having made this broad position of what has been achieved and what are the gaps, we would then look at what are those relevant areas, relevant broad areas that the working group could look at as a possibility, again flowing out of the Tunis Agenda which is firstly talking about this identification of those international public policy issues pertaining to Internet which is an exercise the correspondence group would come up with which will perhaps could be part of this particular portion of the report. And there are technical issues as well as issues relating to the oversight. That would be in the range of the -- thereafter, I think the most would say assessment-based aspects will now have to come into the report before we actually go into the recommendations. Now here, when you talk of assess -- prior to assessment we also need to look at the role of various stakeholders. Now, this is where there seems to be some lack of convergence, if I can use the word. The issue which is of whether what has been described in the Tunis Agenda of the relative roles, do they still remain intact or there has been certain cross -- cross, what do you say, movement of some of the responsibilities of the various stakeholders. But I think it will not be inappropriate, at least to begin with, to use what is the language that's given in the Tunis Agenda, for example, with regard to the role of the governments and with regard to the role of private sector, the role of civil society, and the role of Internet -- governmental organizations. And one thing we must certainly do is bring in the role of academic and technical communities which -- who have been left behind for God knows what reasons. I think their contributions also need to be recognized and see what relative role they can also bring into the whole enhanced cooperation element. At the end of this -- I mean, here we need to -- again, in each of these, we could have a shepherd which -- initiating from what is given in the Tunis Agenda. And if there are any changes, the group feels need to be added or to be made, and that is something -- that would be part of an assessment, frankly an assessment we'll have to make, given the views that are prevalent in the room. Then comes the next level which is the inputs that are going to be moving into the mechanisms or frameworks. There are views about fora, the colleagues have said, or activities. Now, this is where we need to be making perhaps a very close -- we will be taking a close look at this part of the report which would talk about the need for strengthening the existing mechanisms and at the same time talking about the need for having possible new mechanisms. And this is where the direct input we will get from the correspondence group which would have done a certain mapping of the existing -- of identified international public policy issues. And then we have the mechanisms or frameworks which are existing. And if they're not in the view of the group, then we need to perhaps touch upon that part in this part of the -- in this part of the report. And there's one more dimension which we might need to reflect, again, this is the relationship of whatever mechanisms which are existing or new ones, with the existing bodies, international bodies, which are dealing with international public policy issues. Just to give an example, like WIPO. There are issues which are already being dealt with by WIPO, similarly ITU, some aspects. We could come up with this relationship of those existing mechanisms or the new ones with this new body -- with the already -- with the part of the United Nations system because they are already part of it. And there is also already a big debate in the WIPO how to deal with issues relating to what has been transacted on the Internet. Toward the end, I think it will be very important for us also to look at -- I mean, this is one thing which I thought would be very relevant to look at the relationship with the IGF because as we made this process that we should have two processes which are complementing each other and working on a side-by-side basis. Of course, I did hear some views today that some believe that it is in itself part of the enhanced cooperation. That's debatable. But I think we need to, given the current mandate of the Tunis Agenda and the U.N. General Assembly resolutions, very clearly pointing out that these are two processes distinct and having certain complementarities which need to be further strengthened, in a sense. It could be a very good relationship between the two processes. Broadly, I think -- the last issue which I think will be a final outcome of the correspondence group would have to come under the relevant roles which we are going to define. The role of, let's say, a particular stakeholder and possible areas under which have been identified by the group, those could be either listed there or could be annexed to the report. So that -- to keep the main body of the report relatively shorter and to have an annex which gives those areas which we have -- perhaps believe could be part of a particular stakeholder's direct response. Here comes the challenge. There could be areas where they are cross-cutting, where everyone is involved. We need to devise the mechanism of how to list those international public policy issues that we would like them to be looked at by a stakeholder or stakeholders. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. It's nice to hear one's own ideas back. You are already writing my report, so I'm real grateful for that. I think there is great merit what you have said. And probably what I suggest to you is taking from -- either you can provide the written form or we can take it from the transcript. And I will ask the secretariat to start an initial rolling document in this sense which really makes sense. And probably it's something which people can contribute and say, no, we want a different categorization, we want a different structure. But we have to start somewhere. And that's my main idea, that eventually we should come up with some kind of structure for our recommendations. I fully agree that naturally we will have an introductory part. We will have an analysis part. We will have all the text which is needed for this report. But to have some kind of structure for the recommendations, it is really needed to think about how we are going to formulate. One idea I had was based on the document which was offered to you as a summary of the responses, which is strictly related to the inputs we had and which also reflect the mandate. And it may be also an idea to reflect these categories what we had in the summary paper in the recommendations. In the process of our work, we may find that eventually we should deviate or we should split some of the categories. It may be that we shall merge some of the categories. I still don't know. It very much depends on you and on the way we are going to move forward. I really thank you for your contributions. And if you want to add, please do it. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I was remiss on my part not to mention another important dimension which is relating to the developing countries of which I think there is -- some contributions are coming in. And that would be a part of the report which will have to come perhaps just before conclusions, I guess, because it will also be drawing upon some of the recommendations that the group would be making on whether it is on the relative roles or whether it is on the mechanisms. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Any comments on the intervention of India? Sweden, please. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, first of all, I would like to thank India for this work. I think it is really a good start. Definitely something that we can work on. We're looking forward to seeing it in written form, and then we will analyze that further. And maybe we can work on a rolling document, as you said. I just want to make one thing clear from our perspective for the record, that when we're talking about "mechanisms" here, our interpretation of that is that it can be a process, it can be an organization, it can be a fora. So that is -- potentially, that's a list that could be expanded. I think that's very important to make clear given both the mandate of the correspondence group and the structure that was proposed by India on the report. But we are -- once again, would like to thank India for that. And I think we can work further on that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Avri? >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you, Chair, for giving me the opportunity to speak. I just wanted to mention that several of us put forward a document that was intended as food for thought and I believe is in many ways complementary to many of the recommendations just made by India. In that document, we try to reflect the reality with the Tunis Agenda as the starting point for all of our discussions but that it is also not the last word on Internet governance or the roles and responsibilities in an evolving Internet. It takes into account and respects the many views that we have received to the questionnaire. It appreciates the existing mechanisms respectful of the idea and the many organizations of the Internet technical community. And it attempts to avoid any top-down recommendations that would harm the organic international Internet processes that are ongoing and constantly evolving. So on behalf of those who contributed to the stake in the ground, I would like to ask the members of this community to consider our offerings as we move forward. Thank you very much, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. I think your contribution has been circulated within the group to be taken into account. And I would like to remind us all that we are all part of the process, which is the WSIS +10 process. So with this in mind, we have to pursue our work. So we are going to contribute to this WSIS +10 process. I can see Jimson. >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you, Distinguished Chair. I want to really appreciate you for the way you have moderated thus far. I would like to speak to the proposal or the submission of distinguished representative from India. Actually, I wanted to comment to talk about: Have you left us out, the developing countries? And then he came up again and talked about it. So I think a bigger gap on enhanced cooperation is to focus in on what happens at developing nations. That should be given a lot of recognition in the report. And, also, to agree with the distinguished delegates from Sweden with regard to what we mean by "mechanism" because there are a lot of processes that is ongoing that is also facilitating the process of building confidence with regard to formulating international policy pertaining to the growth of the Internet. And, lastly, there was a very important forum that took place here in Geneva that was May last year. There was a lot of inputs in that forum, very rich because I read the script and everything. So I think it also would be good if we make reference to that. The correspondence group can have it, actually can look through it, can be part of the reference group because I can recall a lot of vital inputs in that discussion, the first discussion enabled by the CSTD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson. I believe the document has been made available to the group. It was the initial document -- one of the initial documents for the first meeting that was the transcript of the 2012 May meeting of this year, so open consultation the CSTD had in the ILO last -- not last May but May 2012. So thank you. It's well taken, but it has already been made available. If you wish, we can resend it. Virat, you wanted to take the floor. And then even though I told Brazil we are not going to have coffee, we are going to have coffee. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to come in and throw our weight behind the framework presented -- the early sketch of the framework presented by distinguished delegate from India. I think we don't -- we perhaps don't realize the importance of this because otherwise this could take one of those four days. And so if -- I think this is really excellent use of our time. If this framework that has been stated in some ways can be structured and put together for comments, then it would be our -- it should be our endeavor to try and agree broadly or as closely as possible on at least the framework when we begin the four-day meeting. You see I'm emphasizing again and again a "four-days" meeting in February because we all want to be back on Friday evening home. If we could try and do that, then I think it will help to have an effective Monday morning rather than spending half the day just arguing on the framework. As the contributory groups work on their mapping exercise, the other larger group on e-mail can mail this as close to as possible. Thanks. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Virat. That was exactly the reason, I'm sorry to say, that pushed India to make public this vote and share with us because I want to save time. And this is a very, very valuable contribution and it will save us a lot of time. And I just want to ask you, in case you have something electronic -- in electronic form, to submit it to the secretariat. And, eventually, probably we can work offline to put out a document on the working group Web site and for consultation with the other members. And when we come back in February, we are very prepared and we know what we are going to do exactly. Having said that, I propose to have a 20-minute coffee break. And after coffee break, I would like to ask the United States who submitted some contribution in form of a recommendation to propose to us. And I would like to close our meeting, if possible, before 6:00. Thank you. So we will come back in 20 minutes time. Oh, Sweden, sorry. >>SWEDEN: Thank you. Just to say also together with Brazil, Mexico, U.K. and Sweden, we have also worked -- well, Sweden, (chuckles) we have also worked on some recommendations that we would like to present to the membership. >>CHAIR MAJOR: You are more than welcome. [ Break ] [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. Can I ask you to take your seats, please. Thank you. Right. So before we broke for coffee, we had a wonderful contribution from India for the framework. And we were promised to have the electronic form in a short while, probably by Monday. And I'm going to work with the secretariat to have the document out on the Web site in order you can have a look at that and comment. Probably this is going to frame our work for the next meeting and will save a lot of time for us. The other thing I mentioned before the coffee break was that we had contributions from several participants, members, in form of recommendations. So who would like to start with the submissions, please raise your flag and let's try to finish before 6:00. I would like to emphasize that this is a draft. We are going to consider it and probably we shall get back to the recommendations -- draft recommendations in our next meeting. But probably this is offered by some of the members for your comments. I believe United States wanted to give the recommendations and eventually from the group of countries, Sweden or Brazil. I'm not sure. Okay. United States, please. >>UNITED STATES: Sure. Thank you, Chair. In the spirit of the guidance that you provided earlier today about looking at possible draft recommendations that could be put forth, particularly in the discussion we had about looking at Group 4, perhaps to start, we put together something to offer for the process. Should I just read it? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, please. >>UNITED STATES: Okay. "International Internet organizations should continue to evolve to meet the needs and facilitate the participation of all stakeholders (including particularly those from developing countries) in their collaborative mechanisms and stakeholders from all groups are encouraged to engage in those Internet institutions to further realize the benefits of their participation. Where participation may be hampered by lack of awareness, educational opportunity, political priority or financial resources, the Internet governance community should endeavor to help find ways to enable such participation." Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, USA. It is very helpful. And as I mentioned to you, this is a draft and probably you consider it also as a draft. And we have to start from somewhere. And I'm really glad that at least we have some draft recommendations. Any comments? You are not obliged to give comments, of course. But if you feel like, raise your hand. Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I would like to thank the U.S. for this. Mr. Chair, I think this is language that captures much of what we have said. And, of course, we would think that meaningful collaboration from this group should go beyond this and provide some more substance to those recommendations. But I think this is -- this captures the framework in which we should work. So I think it's valid that if we can come out of this meeting with some formulations upon which we can build, can try to insert more substance but will, let's say, already give us some direction, not start from zero. In that same sense, we have been working with Sweden, and my colleague from Sweden will introduce the text. It is something which is not at all our ambition at this point in time. We are not, of course, prejudging the outcome of the discussion we have but will provide for some sort of initial way to try to figure out how the recommendations made from this group could look. I would like this to be seen in that light, not something that reflects something that is -- reflects our ambition. It certainly does not. But it is an initial step in that regard. And I thank the U.S. also for this. I think it is very important that we initiate our next meeting with something already in writing to -- not to start from zero and lose time, even in trying to figure out how to go about it. This is the purpose of this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. That is exactly my thought when I asked the participants to contribute in this sense, to start the process of producing recommendations or just the beginning of recommendations. It is also the most difficult part to start something. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. And thanks to the U.S. delegation for starting off. As the Chair says, it is a difficult thing to start off, and we have something we can build over it. And building over it -- I'm going to a layer part, not that I have a problem with the process. And we are into talking about recommendations about part 4 and 5. I mean, the sense of certain discomfort about talking about this has not gone, and it is also exemplified with the present text on the screen. That is not a part that something is more important than the other, but some set of questions are dependent on other sets of questions. And as I now engage with this particular discussion, I again feel that 4 and 5 is so dependent on 2 and 3 that your mind is going to start making contributions not knowing we are trying to increase participation in what mechanisms, we are examining the role of developing countries in what. And that comes back because I don't disagree with that part which is on the screen. However, it's one part. Existing international organizations who are doing work should be more inclusive and the reasons given are about awareness, finance, et cetera which, again, are an important set of work. But a lot of people here earlier, yesterday, or perhaps the day before, said that one of the biggest reasons developing countries can't participate is because there are no mechanisms. And that was repeated by a few people. That's the big thing. Now when we discuss -- having not discussed that big thing, you already are uncertain about the contributions you are making. I mean, what is it you're talking about. And if we speak about that, I mean, I would like to contribute that the biggest problem of developing countries' role is an absence of mechanism. Then I'm probably discussing 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 which I should not do. So that makes me unsure what should I do in this part because for me the biggest problem of participation is absence of international forums where all countries are on equal footing and they can start from the agenda onwards to the final outcomes be a part of the process. So I would think that for me is the biggest excluding factor. And other factors are important, but they come later. And I agree with those factors which have been put on the table. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. Ellen, please. Oh, no, Jimson first. Sorry, sorry. >>ELLEN BLACKLER: I would just like to say in response that I had -- I have some of the same concerns, that it's difficult to do recommendations without having kind of this fact basis that we were looking for. But maybe if we can have an opportunity to review things we come up with in this process in light of the facts again, we'll be able to make some progress, that it is not an either/or operation. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Just reflecting on that naturally, it's an iterative process and we are going to review and probably not once. So, yes, we take it on board and probably with the mind that we are going to have other inputs from the correspondence group. We are going to clarify issues, what Parminder has raised. And in the light of that, probably this will fit into whatever we are going to recommend. Now Jimson. >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you, Chair. Distinguished colleagues, I would like to also join us to appreciate the contributions thus far and in particular the recommendation coming from United States. Well, we know that the issue at hand is an ongoing work and there is nothing wrong for us to make progress as much as we can, even as much as we are within the bigger picture. Well, I want to say I agree with the proposals and I have one or two other propositions here, recommendations. It's similar to what has been proposed, but maybe we can marry them down the line. The first one is that, that the ongoing inclusive national, regional, and international cooperation on matters pertaining to the Internet be sustained among all stakeholders with governments, private sector, civil society, technical and academic community actively playing their respective roles. Then the second one I would like to propose, that the mandate of the United Nations Commission for Science and Technology for Development be enhanced to coordinate international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet in a collaborative, multistakeholder framework that include governments, private sector, civil society, technical and academic community on an equal footing. Thank you, Distinguished Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson. I can see Phil -- oh, Sweden, sorry. I'm sorry, Phil. Sweden asked for the floor first. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chair. I just also wanted to thank the United States and Jimson for those contributions. I agree that it's a good starting point, and I think that's how we should see it. And I think we all agree that what we have on the table now -- right now is only draft, and it's a way to move the work forward. And I think it's good that we work in parallel with the mapping and the drafting of recommendations. So I would like to thank, again, those that made those contributions. And after we have had the discussion on this, I'll come back with our joint recommendations. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Phil. No? Okay. Anyone asking for the floor, I just want to repeat, this is a draft. We are going to revisit it in our next meeting. This is something, just a beginning. I can see Nigeria and Marilyn. Nigeria, please. >>NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to proffer this proposal to -- that international (indiscernible) is already addressing international public policy issues pertaining to Internet strategic awareness and capacity building programs particularly in developing countries and across all sectors, including governments, private sector organizations, civil society, technical and academic communities. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Nigeria. Marilyn, please. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. I'd like to join with others who express appreciation for colleagues in the room who have already put forward some drafts for us to be thinking about. I'm very impressed to have already some language and some good thinking. But I wanted to ask, since I'm a bit slower in thinking, just to think about perhaps there would be a process for us to be able to not wait until our next meeting, but to be able to accept drafts of further recommendations and have a kind of a rolling single document for those -- a place where those would be aggregated so that we can not have to search through the mail list but, you know, have a place where we can find all of the drafts that are submitted as we go forward. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for the suggestion. Probably we are going to do -- not probably. We are going to do it. Sorry. It will be posted on the Web site. And you will have opportunity to contribute, even in between the two sessions we are going to have. Feel free to submit your proposals for recommendations, and it is most welcome and it will be reviewed, I think periodically, by all of us. I expect you to go from time to time to the Web site and find out if there's something new. But at the same time, probably we should establish a mechanism of kind of alert that there's something new. So we shall work it out within the Secretariat. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to accept drafting recommendations but we share the views expressed that when writing recommendations about Cluster 4 can 5, and without covering the Cluster 2 and 3, it's not really clear what kind of recommendations we want to come -- to put. However, we do -- can offer a recommendation as it's a draft and will be looked at at the next meeting. We could say that enhanced cooperation will help assure that Internet governance is carried out according to WSIS principles with full participation from all stakeholders in their respective roles. And enhanced cooperation will enable governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities pertaining to Internet and that by operationalizing enhanced cooperation through a body under the U.N. umbrella international public policy decision will be legitimate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. I think, as I mentioned, all submissions, all proposals for recommendations will be included in this rolling document which will be posted on the CSTD Web site. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you. Well, Brazil, Mexico, United Kingdom, and Sweden would then like to put forward some draft recommendations. We have tried to capture what we have interpreted as some of the areas where there might be emerging consensus, especially in relation to Group 4 and 5 of questions. And we would like to emphasize that this is just a starting point and it's not a finished product in any way, but something for the group to consider. That's the first one. Members should explore ways to strengthen participation of all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global Internet governance fora, including through funding mechanisms and alternative working methods such as remote participation. Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to participate through capacity building, including but not limited to training programs, awareness raising, best practice sharing. Three, members should work with developing countries to create a fair and consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates affordable access for all stakeholders. And four, the role of government should include but not be limited to, to empower Internet uses, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework that is transparent, accountable, and equitable, and protect human rights online, to foster a robust global Internet infrastructure and support multistakeholder processes and partnerships. So once again, I would just like to underline that this is just something that we see as a starting point, something that we can build up on, and I believe we can send -- send those drafts to the Secretariat. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden, Brazil, Mexico, and United Kingdom. I hope I didn't forget anyone. Naturally, we expect that you submit it electronically to the Secretariat that we would be able to post it on the Web site and the same applies to Saudi Arabia. We would like to have your contribution in print form to be posted on the Web site. I can see India, then Mexico and Phil. And Japan. Sorry. Japan was the first. I'm sorry, I couldn't see you. So please, take the floor. >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I deeply appreciate the U.S. and Sweden and Brazil and Mexico and U.K. to prepare the great contribution, preparing the draft of the recommendations for starting point of the discussion. Japan would like to submit the region comment and other input concerning the recommendations after the meeting concerning with the -- the regional organizations within Japan. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Japan. We are awaiting for your submissions. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. Just to flag that we would be making a recommendation on the list to address that particular dimension relating to the digital divide and the need for certain measures because where there is no access, no Internet, I think they also need to be brought into this before we can start talking about their empowerment, which some of these measures would empower those or make them part of the operation system. But we need to perhaps address other dimensions. On that direction we will try to put a recommendation. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Understand I can't help myself to sharing with you that when we were in Durban there was a -- one morning I think many of the participants went to a school which was some 40 kilometers from Durban to help them to paint the walls. And after this very nice action there was some meeting with the students, young students. I believe it's a secondary school. And there was a question asked, how many of you have you heard about the Internet? Of the 30, there was one student who raised his hand. Just one. So I think there's merit in what you're saying. Okay. Mexico. >>MEXICO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to thank my colleague from Sweden to introduce this proposal, recommendations, because we thought that, as you mentioned, that the objective was to have something -- quickly to start something and have it in black and white. So we think it's a very good step, and as you said, this is -- this -- all these contributions will be a working process and contributions regardless of what we decide on the other points, but it's a starting point. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Mexico. Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Much thank the contributors for providing the thoughtful and thought-provoking contributions. I'm sure, as the distinguished delegate from Mexico said, it is a starting point and something to evolve. The only point I would ask is that when the documents and proposals are posted on the Web site, could we also have the source of the proposal identified so that we can engage in conversations and discussions going forward to see and understand and hopefully when we come back in February to be very conversant with the other's views and hopefully agreements. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, it is my understanding that we shall quote the sources. I mean, it provides the understanding of the sources as well and it's not really the understanding but I would assume the wishes of the source to be quoted. Yes. I can see Parminder, and before -- and there's -- [ Speaker is off microphone. ] Mexico has already taken the floor. We have to recognize also some contributions were received by e-mail which will also be posted and there were contributions from Finland, Mervi contributed, and we have contributions from Avri and Carlos. So all these contributions -- and Joy. All these contributions will be posted on the Web site. If you feel like introducing them, that's perfectly okay. If you don't, that's okay as well. So I just wanted to flag it that we have further contributions that will be posted on the Web site. Probably at this hour we don't really want to go into detailed debate, but as I indicated to you, I think this is just the beginning. Lesotho. >>LESOTHO: Thank you very much, Chair. After sitting here a little bit quiet for the week, but solely because most of the points that have been raised are things that we are agreeable to. Chair, I just wanted to reemphasize two points that have already been raised, particularly for developing countries and more specifically least-developed countries. For them to be -- this relates to capacity building as well including their existing mechanisms within, basically national as well as regional mechanisms that are in place. And lastly, Chair, the point that you raised about the school you went to, seeing that Durbin is also very close to my country, the issue about digital divide that -- that has been raised by other colleagues here already, that it is very important that we -- it is very much captured. And lastly, Chair, I just want to thank all the -- the various speakers that have made their various recommendations and we look forward to going through those in preparation for the February meeting. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Lesotho. Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I -- my first comment is that was what was originally proposed by Marilyn Cade and supported by you but we should have a platform that would allow us internationally to feed into some other draft recommendations that will enable us at the beginning of next meeting to have a set of formulations we can work on. I think this would be very helpful from the point of view of efficiency of how we work. And then we, of course, also benefit from having the mapping exercise, I think we'll have tools that will assist us in our further work. One thing about making these proposals, and I have insisted in exercising the aspect that these are initial and they do not, I think, address correctly the vision and do not adequately encompass the mandate we are given. And if I can quote a thought from my compatriot, Carlos Afonso, we are discussing yesterday and he's been in this process for many years and he was just recalling that much of what we have been doing here has in some way already been addressed. So we run the risk in the end of just repeating formulations that have been already known. And so if we want to move ahead and make a contribution, real contribution, we must make a very good effort to go beyond that. I think the mapping exercise will be a tool for that. I think if we can have those formulation can think about these and try to put more substance. I think certainly we need to go beyond the mere identification of the issues and making a call because these are things that are already there. One proposal we are not -- but I'd like to indicate in line with what we have been saying, and Saudi Arabia has also made a proposal in regard to Groups 1 and 2 and 3. And one thing that is independent from this mapping is our assessment that we would like a platform but to enable for holistic integrated discussion. So this is something that we can, I think of as of now, we will in the next few days or so forward a proposal for that. But look something like operationalizing enhanced cooperation requires that we should maybe say multistakeholder platform through each government an equal footing could engage in the discussion and possible policymaking of international public-related issues, or something in that direction. And we think it's not pre-judging the outcome of the mapping exercise because we think this is something that is needed. And then I think we'll have to discuss, in our next meeting, whether we can -- there's enough consensus where that should be located, what to be formed. I think that will be relevant discussion. I think on the basis of the proposals from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others, maybe we can have enough substance of discussion and try to frame some way to address this. And of course, the specific recommendations relating to the mapping exercise of more specific issues. So I'm very glad that we have come to this. I was a bit concerned that we would come out of the meeting without something more concrete. This is not yet -- I repeat, that does not affect the foundation of the (indiscernible) but it is a step in the direction of building something that I think in the interest of calling us to go beyond what we have already have on the table. And as Carlos Afonso has reminded me, and I'm very thankful for him to recall this, not to give impression that we are just, let's say, rephrasing and giving better wording for things that are already there, even in the Tunis Agenda. I think we must go beyond that, and we have this opportunity and I think the moment is right to do so. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. I can promise you we will go beyond. I have no doubt. And Parminder, you want to take the floor? Okay. So I think this is a time to -- Oh, India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I couldn't but make this one last comment before we conclude. This is on the lines the distinguished ambassador from Brazil has mentioned of the various stakeholders. One idea which I'm just throwing it up here which we could pursue it in our future intersession as well as during the next debate, there are obviously few models which -- wherein governments have taken certain initiatives in some regions on how to prepare those Internet -- principles on Internet. One I can certainly recall is the OECD which has been referred to by some of the colleagues. And there are distinct areas where I think there is -- there is a felt need to have active role of governments, of course with the involvement through various processes of all other stakeholders. To just to name some of them, which I'm interested in reading, going through some of the documents that have been adopted by this body, and there is a call to see how it can be made applicable, replicate such things in a global manner. Whether it is cybersecurity, whether it is consumer rights, whether it is children online, whether it is international cooperation Internet governance, cross-border enforcement cooperation. There are some areas I think where we would eventually be required to make a comment on. And I think it will be another important contribution from our point of view, that where such areas -- again, the least possible, what we call friction, these are areas I'm sure all stakeholders are involved but there's a certain lead that the governments will need to take. Just a very indicative list. Which have been acknowledge and which are a part of the established documents which are being already followed by a few governments by virtue of a certain regional engagement. I don't think we will be out of place to reflect on some such areas and how we can see that such a mechanism or a fora, better way you can call where governments can actually take an active role (indiscernible) in our discussions in future. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. I believe this is the time to conclude. I won't be long. Japan, you want to take the floor. >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one question. To submit contributions and a comment, can you tell us the deadline to submit the contribution and the comments to the contributions and how to submit such kind of contribution? Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Probably the best way to submit your contribution is to the secretariat. The secretariat will post it on the Web site. As for the deadline, probably it will be the beginning of our next meeting. But all of us would prefer to have the comments, contributions, much before. But even during the meeting, you can contribute. We have no deadline. But please set yourself a deadline to do it considering what you would like to have from others. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. Again for clarification, I propose, that if the groups are submitting proposals and for the purpose of the consideration of other members of the group, to submit them on the list because then everybody immediately knows that there is a proposal because you never know how often to keep on going to the Web site. Just a proposal. People have different Web or Internet behavior. When the group gets it, they kind of respond to it immediately. So that's the whole idea so that probably it would be good in addition, of course, to putting it on the Web. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I think this is a good way forward, yeah. Okay. So please make your submissions in any way. So, ladies and gentlemen, we have come to the end of this meeting. I really want to congratulate you on the good cooperation you have shown. I think all of you contributed in a very, very good way. And it helped us, all of us, to have a better understanding of the issues which are ahead of us. We managed to go through the contributions. We analyzed the questions. We decided to set up a correspondence group. We decided on the terms of references for the correspondence group. We had a submission about the possible framework for all recommendations. But last, but not least, we had quite a lot of submissions, proposals, for recommendations. So I'm really pleased with the result we had up to now. And I'm also optimistic about the future meeting we are going to have in February. There is a great work waiting for us. I would encourage you to contribute to the best of your knowledge to the work of the correspondence group and to the work of the working group itself in forms of submissions, of recommendations. And please be prepared that for the next meeting, we are going to have a very, very hard task. We have to finish our work by providing recommendations in the sense the Ambassador of Brazil reminded us, that we should go beyond what has been done up till now. That is the reason we are here. And last, but not least, I would like to thank -- well, not last, I would like to thank, first of all, the secretariat for the excellent work they provided for us. And I would like to thank the scribes who have followed us. They did a great job. So I want to give a hand to them. [ Applause ] Thank you for your presence here, for your contributions. And I wish you a good journey back home. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But we cannot conclude without also thanking you for your able leadership and you deserve applaud and a hand from us all. [ Applause ] Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Virat? >>VIRAT BHATIA: Chairman, just one last point. I think for the last meeting, since we are timing it very carefully next to the MAG meeting and I suppose a lot more observers and especially from the civil society would want to participate, if we can be explicit about the date and the timing and the process for their participation as observers well in advance, it will help them to be here because they will be planning their visit to attend both meetings, including the weekend, so that will be helpful for them. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Right. (Meeting has concluded.) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 11 10:19:04 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:19:04 -0200 Subject: [governance] MIPOC In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <5280F568.8030205@cafonso.ca> Dear all, first of all I dismiss the proposal from Corsair Drake to call it MYOPIC. It is not myopic at all, but I feel adding to the mix mandatory field expertise could make it viable. fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/11/2013 01:10 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts. As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and collaboration by all involved stakehold ers (and this includes early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities). >> >> For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy". >> >> However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. >> ... > > Wolfgang - > > I've been staring at the above paragraphs for several days, and have come to > the conclusion that I agree in the abstract but not with some of the specifics... > > I _do_ agree that "there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communication, > coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes > early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into account that > different stakeholders have different but shared responsibilities)" Furthermore, > I believe that an Internet policy matter "clearing house", or (as Lee suggests, > staff capacity to provide that capability) might also be quite helpful, although > the details of such may prove vexing. (Jeremy's proposal is also an intriguing > start here...) > > The area of less agreement would be in ability to distinguish Internet public policy > issues from Internet day-to-day operational issues, particularly when it comes to > judging these issues with respect to the existing Internet registry systems... > It is simply not possible for all issues to be considered as a political matter, > otherwise every item of Internet operations of "critical Internet resources" would > be also a potential public policy issue, and the Internet would quickly bog down > with thousands of routine administrative tasks on hold, pending being cleared of > political implications... > > For example, the development of a schedule of DNS reserved names definitely has > public policy implications, but once it has been established, then it allows > registry operations to proceed without having to send each and every individual > registration request within each subdomain to a body of public policy experts to > individually review and approve. Similarly, policies for IP address management > are developed in each of the regions (and there are indeed public policy aspects > to IP address policies); the subsequent implementation and routine operations per > those policies should not be a political matter (so long as there is fidelity in > implementation and execution to the developed policies.) > > The actual boundary I refer to is not "political vs technical"; it's the policy > development (which needs to consider both technical and public policy aspects) > vs routine, day-to-day administrative and operational tasks (which must function > independently but with fidelity to the developed policies) This does not in any > way detract from your keen observation regarding the need for "bottom up enhanced > communication, coordination and collaboration"; I just want to make sure we don't > lose the distinction of policy development vs policy implementation and execution. > > Thanks for the thoughtful response! > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. Luckily, discussion of Internet cooperation matters > is a routine administrative task for me, otherwise these email would > be held pending approval via a more formal development process... > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Nov 11 12:49:49 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:49:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] MIPOC In-Reply-To: <5280F568.8030205@cafonso.ca> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5280F568.8030205@caf onso.ca> Message-ID: Grande Carlos It was a joke, not a proposal…? Best Bill On Nov 11, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear all, first of all I dismiss the proposal from Corsair Drake to call > it MYOPIC. It is not myopic at all, but I feel adding to the mix > mandatory field expertise could make it viable. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 11/11/2013 01:10 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts. As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and collaboration by all involved stakehold > ers (and this includes early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities). >>> >>> For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy". >>> >>> However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. >>> ... >> >> Wolfgang - >> >> I've been staring at the above paragraphs for several days, and have come to >> the conclusion that I agree in the abstract but not with some of the specifics... >> >> I _do_ agree that "there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communication, >> coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes >> early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into account that >> different stakeholders have different but shared responsibilities)" Furthermore, >> I believe that an Internet policy matter "clearing house", or (as Lee suggests, >> staff capacity to provide that capability) might also be quite helpful, although >> the details of such may prove vexing. (Jeremy's proposal is also an intriguing >> start here...) >> >> The area of less agreement would be in ability to distinguish Internet public policy >> issues from Internet day-to-day operational issues, particularly when it comes to >> judging these issues with respect to the existing Internet registry systems... >> It is simply not possible for all issues to be considered as a political matter, >> otherwise every item of Internet operations of "critical Internet resources" would >> be also a potential public policy issue, and the Internet would quickly bog down >> with thousands of routine administrative tasks on hold, pending being cleared of >> political implications... >> >> For example, the development of a schedule of DNS reserved names definitely has >> public policy implications, but once it has been established, then it allows >> registry operations to proceed without having to send each and every individual >> registration request within each subdomain to a body of public policy experts to >> individually review and approve. Similarly, policies for IP address management >> are developed in each of the regions (and there are indeed public policy aspects >> to IP address policies); the subsequent implementation and routine operations per >> those policies should not be a political matter (so long as there is fidelity in >> implementation and execution to the developed policies.) >> >> The actual boundary I refer to is not "political vs technical"; it's the policy >> development (which needs to consider both technical and public policy aspects) >> vs routine, day-to-day administrative and operational tasks (which must function >> independently but with fidelity to the developed policies) This does not in any >> way detract from your keen observation regarding the need for "bottom up enhanced >> communication, coordination and collaboration"; I just want to make sure we don't >> lose the distinction of policy development vs policy implementation and execution. >> >> Thanks for the thoughtful response! >> /John >> >> Disclaimers: My views alone. Luckily, discussion of Internet cooperation matters >> is a routine administrative task for me, otherwise these email would >> be held pending approval via a more formal development process... >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Nov 11 13:07:01 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:07:01 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] MIPOC In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5280F568.8030205@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52811CC5.9080305@cafonso.ca> Of course! Just following up on the joke :) --c.a. On 11/11/2013 03:49 PM, William Drake wrote: > Grande Carlos > > It was a joke, not a proposal…? > > Best > > Bill > > On Nov 11, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Dear all, first of all I dismiss the proposal from Corsair Drake to call >> it MYOPIC. It is not myopic at all, but I feel adding to the mix >> mandatory field expertise could make it viable. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 11/11/2013 01:10 PM, John Curran wrote: >>> On Nov 7, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>> >>>> to differentiate between politcal and technical issues is as impossibel as it was in 2004 when we started the discussion in the WGIG. Each public policy Internet issue has a technical dimension and each technical day to day operation has political implications. One reason, why the EU proposal for a "new cooperation model" failed was that the EU was unable to explain where "the level of principle" ends and the "day to day operation" starts. As we have seen in the last 8 years - in particuar with regard to the new gTLD progrmm - you can not separate those issues. The introduction of new gTLDs is primarly a technical issues (and belongs to the day to day operation) but - ask GAC members - it is seen by governments as a highly politcal issue. Similar things can be said around IPv& or the new security protocols discussed now by the IETF in Vancouver. With other words, there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communiciation, coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeho ld >> ers (and this includes early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into accunt that different stakeholders have different but shared responsibiilities). >>>> >>>> For all this no new mechanisms are needed. The 70 UN member states which still ignore GAC, should reconsider its "empty chair policy". >>>> >>>> However what is missing - in my eyes - is something like a clearing house which identifies the public policy dimension of (new) issues under discussion and helps to find the right procedure to manage those problems on an case by case basis. This could by done via a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) on top of the IGF. The IGF has a MAG but the MAG is just a programme committtee to prepare the annual IGF meetings. It does not discuss policy issues. >>>> ... >>> >>> Wolfgang - >>> >>> I've been staring at the above paragraphs for several days, and have come to >>> the conclusion that I agree in the abstract but not with some of the specifics... >>> >>> I _do_ agree that "there is no alternative to a bottom up enhanced communication, >>> coordination and collaboration by all involved stakeholders (and this includes >>> early engagement by governments on an equal footing taking into account that >>> different stakeholders have different but shared responsibilities)" Furthermore, >>> I believe that an Internet policy matter "clearing house", or (as Lee suggests, >>> staff capacity to provide that capability) might also be quite helpful, although >>> the details of such may prove vexing. (Jeremy's proposal is also an intriguing >>> start here...) >>> >>> The area of less agreement would be in ability to distinguish Internet public policy >>> issues from Internet day-to-day operational issues, particularly when it comes to >>> judging these issues with respect to the existing Internet registry systems... >>> It is simply not possible for all issues to be considered as a political matter, >>> otherwise every item of Internet operations of "critical Internet resources" would >>> be also a potential public policy issue, and the Internet would quickly bog down >>> with thousands of routine administrative tasks on hold, pending being cleared of >>> political implications... >>> >>> For example, the development of a schedule of DNS reserved names definitely has >>> public policy implications, but once it has been established, then it allows >>> registry operations to proceed without having to send each and every individual >>> registration request within each subdomain to a body of public policy experts to >>> individually review and approve. Similarly, policies for IP address management >>> are developed in each of the regions (and there are indeed public policy aspects >>> to IP address policies); the subsequent implementation and routine operations per >>> those policies should not be a political matter (so long as there is fidelity in >>> implementation and execution to the developed policies.) >>> >>> The actual boundary I refer to is not "political vs technical"; it's the policy >>> development (which needs to consider both technical and public policy aspects) >>> vs routine, day-to-day administrative and operational tasks (which must function >>> independently but with fidelity to the developed policies) This does not in any >>> way detract from your keen observation regarding the need for "bottom up enhanced >>> communication, coordination and collaboration"; I just want to make sure we don't >>> lose the distinction of policy development vs policy implementation and execution. >>> >>> Thanks for the thoughtful response! >>> /John >>> >>> Disclaimers: My views alone. Luckily, discussion of Internet cooperation matters >>> is a routine administrative task for me, otherwise these email would >>> be held pending approval via a more formal development process... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Mon Nov 11 13:18:47 2013 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:18:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] MIPOC In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5278E125.4070900@itforchange.net> <527A0081.2080805@itforchange.net> <594322B6-B4A4-4A3A-8334-935327A95BFE@hserus.net> <527A8AF0.3070403@itforchange.net> <527A977E.1020506@itforchange.net> <527A9CD5.80108@itforchange.net> <18127CB0-9061-4622-A43F-7CDA1F3EA087@istaff.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321AB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5280F568.8030205@caf onso.ca> Message-ID: <0EA71FD0-0FA0-4B95-B7C5-5AFF663E112C@christopherwilkinson.eu> Well, having investigated, off line, this excursion into ophthalmology, I can confirm that it was not a proposal. Whether it was a joke is for others to determine; I had a laugh. Regards CW On 11 Nov 2013, at 18:49, William Drake wrote: > Grande Carlos > > It was a joke, not a proposal…? > > Best > > Bill > > On Nov 11, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Dear all, first of all I dismiss the proposal from Corsair Drake to call >> it MYOPIC. It is not myopic at all, but I feel adding to the mix >> mandatory field expertise could make it viable. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 11/11/2013 01:10 PM, John Curran 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 shailam at yahoo.com Mon Nov 11 13:38:37 2013 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:38:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 4 Days to Go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1384195117.64317.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Please add my name to serve on NomCom..would be an honor to serve. regards  Shaila Rao Mistry     President StemInstitute Transforming Ideals into Action   President JAYCOMMI Input Technology With A Human Touch   www.jaycopanels.com Tel: 951 738 2000   MWOSB         The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! On Monday, November 11, 2013 2:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Volunteers for MAG NomCom[25 Volunteers needed] 1. Adam Peake 2. Ian Peter 3. Kossi Amessinou 4. Angela Daly 5. Jeremy Hunsinger 6. Kerry Brown 7. Chaitanya Dhareshwar 8. Erick Iriarte Ahon 9. Ginger Paque 10. Jose F Callo Romero 11. Suresh Ramasubramanium 12. Badouin Schombe 13. Robin Gross 14. Tapani Tarvainen 15. David Cake [We need 10 more to volunteer for the NomCom] Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection  can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. 1. Asif Kabani 2. Rudi Vansnick 3. Sonigitu Ekpe 4. Imran Ahmed Shah 5. Fouad Bajwa 6. Katim S Touray Note: Chun Eung Hwi and Carlos Vera Quintana both volunteered but awaiting clarification as to what specifically they are volunteering for NomCom or MAG ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 11 14:15:58 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:15:58 +1300 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 3 Days to Go Message-ID: Dear All, We need 6 more volunteers for the NomCom before we close the call for MAG NomCom. From these 25 volunteers, only 5 volunteers will be randomly selected using the process documented in RFC3797. For more details about the NomCom, see: http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process The NomCom will then be selecting the IGC MAG Nominees for referral to the IGF Secretariat. For those who wish to be nominated by the IGC as its MAG Nominees, please send in your names ASAP. So far from the current selection, I do not see any women submitting their names. :( Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] 1. Adam Peake 2. Ian Peter 3. Kossi Amessinou 4. Angela Daly 5. Jeremy Hunsinger 6. Kerry Brown 7. Chaitanya Dhareshwar 8. Erick Iriarte Ahon 9. Ginger Paque 10. Jose F Callo Romero 11. Suresh Ramasubramanium 12. Badouin Schombe 13. Robin Gross 14. Tapani Tarvainen 15. David Cake 16. Jeremy Malcolm 17. Chun Eung Hwi 18. Antonio Mediza Gomez 19. Shaila Rao Mistry [We need 6 more to volunteer for the NomCom] Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. 1. Asif Kabani 2. Rudi Vansnick 3. Sonigitu Ekpe 4. Imran Ahmed Shah 5. Fouad Bajwa 6. Katim S Touray Note: Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification as to what specifically he is volunteering for NomCom or MAG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 11 17:15:29 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:15:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 3 Days to Go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Me presento como voluntario... Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo 2013/11/11 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > Dear All, > > We need 6 more volunteers for the NomCom before we close the call for MAG > NomCom. From these 25 volunteers, only 5 volunteers will be randomly > selected using the process documented in RFC3797. For more details about the > NomCom, see: http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process > > The NomCom will then be selecting the IGC MAG Nominees for referral to the > IGF Secretariat. > > For those who wish to be nominated by the IGC as its MAG Nominees, please > send in your names ASAP. So far from the current selection, I do not see any > women submitting their names. :( > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > Adam Peake > > Ian Peter > > Kossi Amessinou > > Angela Daly > > Jeremy Hunsinger > > Kerry Brown > > Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > Erick Iriarte Ahon > > Ginger Paque > > Jose F Callo Romero > > Suresh Ramasubramanium > > Badouin Schombe > > Robin Gross > > Tapani Tarvainen > > David Cake > > Jeremy Malcolm > > Chun Eung Hwi > > Antonio Mediza Gomez > > Shaila Rao Mistry > > > > [We need 6 more to volunteer for the NomCom] > > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and > wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > Asif Kabani > > Rudi Vansnick > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > Fouad Bajwa > > Katim S Touray > > > Note: Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification as to what > specifically he is volunteering for NomCom or MAG > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Mon Nov 11 13:26:13 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (williams.deirdre at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:26:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 3 Days to Go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6994605-1384209065-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-693474891-@b26.c3.bise6.blackberry> I'll volunteer for the nom com Deirdre Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -----Original Message----- From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:15:58 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 3 Days to Go Dear All, We need 6 more volunteers for the NomCom before we close the call for MAG NomCom. From these 25 volunteers, only 5 volunteers will be randomly selected using the process documented in RFC3797. For more details about the NomCom, see: http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process The NomCom will then be selecting the IGC MAG Nominees for referral to the IGF Secretariat. For those who wish to be nominated by the IGC as its MAG Nominees, please send in your names ASAP. So far from the current selection, I do not see any women submitting their names. :( Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] 1. Adam Peake 2. Ian Peter 3. Kossi Amessinou 4. Angela Daly 5. Jeremy Hunsinger 6. Kerry Brown 7. Chaitanya Dhareshwar 8. Erick Iriarte Ahon 9. Ginger Paque 10. Jose F Callo Romero 11. Suresh Ramasubramanium 12. Badouin Schombe 13. Robin Gross 14. Tapani Tarvainen 15. David Cake 16. Jeremy Malcolm 17. Chun Eung Hwi 18. Antonio Mediza Gomez 19. Shaila Rao Mistry [We need 6 more to volunteer for the NomCom] Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. 1. Asif Kabani 2. Rudi Vansnick 3. Sonigitu Ekpe 4. Imran Ahmed Shah 5. Fouad Bajwa 6. Katim S Touray Note: Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification as to what specifically he is volunteering for NomCom or MAG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 11 17:52:19 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:52:19 +1300 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 3 Days to Go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jose, Please clarify which you are applying for NomCom or MAG? Thanks, Sala On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:15 AM, José Félix Arias Ynche wrote: > Me presento como voluntario... > > > Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche > Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo > > > 2013/11/11 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>: > > Dear All, > > > > We need 6 more volunteers for the NomCom before we close the call for MAG > > NomCom. From these 25 volunteers, only 5 volunteers will be randomly > > selected using the process documented in RFC3797. For more details about > the > > NomCom, see: http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process > > > > The NomCom will then be selecting the IGC MAG Nominees for referral to > the > > IGF Secretariat. > > > > For those who wish to be nominated by the IGC as its MAG Nominees, please > > send in your names ASAP. So far from the current selection, I do not see > any > > women submitting their names. :( > > > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > > > Adam Peake > > > > Ian Peter > > > > Kossi Amessinou > > > > Angela Daly > > > > Jeremy Hunsinger > > > > Kerry Brown > > > > Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > > > Erick Iriarte Ahon > > > > Ginger Paque > > > > Jose F Callo Romero > > > > Suresh Ramasubramanium > > > > Badouin Schombe > > > > Robin Gross > > > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > David Cake > > > > Jeremy Malcolm > > > > Chun Eung Hwi > > > > Antonio Mediza Gomez > > > > Shaila Rao Mistry > > > > > > > > [We need 6 more to volunteer for the NomCom] > > > > > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and > > wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > > > Asif Kabani > > > > Rudi Vansnick > > > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > > > Fouad Bajwa > > > > Katim S Touray > > > > > > Note: Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification as to > what > > specifically he is volunteering for NomCom or MAG > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Nov 11 18:01:56 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:01:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> <20131110124021.E3FDD3287CC@a2knetwork.org> Message-ID: Dear Mawaki, two comments: At 20:28 10/11/2013, Mawaki Chango wrote: >#3 That procedure does not have to be carried out publicly on a >discussion list such as these ones --for, among other things, the >safety reasons and possible risks that have already been mentioned. >A structure may be put in place (NomCom?) to receive such statements. We know from experience there only are public discussions, with the help of NSA and/or wikileaks and co. As E.S (Eric Schmidt, not Edward Snowden) puts it: if you do not want something to be published on the internet do not do it. >there are basically three ways for having money: i) you sell >something, goods or services; ii) you tax someone else; or iii) >someone chooses to give you the money for whatever reason, possibly >including a service you didn't even set out to sell. In CS we do at >least a little bit of the three --through grant proposals or >consultancy, member dues (albeit with less dire consequences than >defaulting on your income tax), and fundraising or donations CS orgs >receive. But it looks like the latter category is what supports the >most CS advocacy activities. That makes you think twice about where >we actually are on the power map. Maybe there is some solace to be >found in the fact that many of the sources CS orgs get money from >are also part of CS, to begin with: private citizens who once were >industrious enough and with enough ingenuity to become wealthy and >set up foundations or other charity orgs. Short of that, CS would >perhaps have to receive the bulk of its money from the people who >tax other people. The origin of the money is not a problem. The problem is the non-disclosure. There are several ways around that can be explored: * a CS oath, as for the Olympics. * the sponsorship to be disclosed at registration. * the creation of a CSFoundation to collect and attribute fundings in a fairly ballanced manner and published policy. Its CSnomcom list would gather reps from all the participating CS organizations. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From devonrb at gmail.com Mon Nov 11 21:36:25 2013 From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:36:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 5 Days to Go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have not been a good NonCOM the l;ast time around, But I am volunteering again. Devon On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > > The NomCom process can be found here: http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process > Due to the tight deadline we have, we apologise in advance for the > frequency of the emails on this subject but it is necessary. > > Even if you do not wish to be selected, your input is valuable and you can > play an active role in seeking out appropriate candidates for either the > NomCom or MAG. The role of the NomCom is important because out of the 25, > only 5 will be randomly selected to identify our nominees for the MAG > selection. > > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. > > Adam Peake > 2. > > Ian Peter > 3. > > Kossi Amessinou > 4. > > Angela Daly > 5. > > Jeremy Hunsinger > > > > [We need 20 more to volunteer for the NomCom] > > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > 1. > > Asif Kabani > 2. > > Rudi Vansnick > 3. > > Sonigitu Ekpe > 4. > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> With reference to the following Call for the Nominations (for IGF MAG), >> and subsequent messages from Mr Izumi Aizu & Ms Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, I >> would nominate myself for the IGF MAG. >> >> I recently has organized a workshop at AP regional IGF 2013 at Seoul with >> the title of Governance for the Internet of Kids, Teenagers and Youngsters. >> Workshop detail & my profile may be find at APrIGF Website ( >> http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-32/ , http://2013.rigf.asia/day3/ and >> http://2013.rigf.asia/speakers-profiles/#Imran). >> >> Further information as mentioned for EOI, I will arrange to submit to the >> Coordinators and MAG Nomcom. >> >> Thanking you and Best Regards >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> Member Internet Governance Caucus >> Founding President IGF Pakistan >> NCUC Member (since 2009) >> ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Sonigitu Ekpe >> *To:* Jeremy Hunsinger ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Sent:* Sunday, 10 November 2013, 11:59 >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call >> for names) URGENT >> >> I volunteer to serve on the MAG. >> Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >> "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >> +234 8027510179 >> On Nov 10, 2013 5:37 AM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" wrote: >> >> I can do nomcom >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is >> an update: >> >> *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] >> >> 1. Adame Peake >> 2. Ian Peter >> 3. Kossi Amessinou >> >> *[We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom]* >> >> *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse >> and wide] Feel free to nominate people. * >> >> 1. Asif Kabani >> 2. Rudi Vansnick >> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is >> an update: >> >> *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] >> >> 1. Adame Peake >> 2. Ian Peter >> 3. Kossi Amessinou >> >> >> *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse >> and wide] Feel free to nominate people. * >> >> 1. Asif Kabani >> 2. Rudi Vansnick >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Devon Blake ICT and Development Consultant 29 Dominica Drive Kgn 5 ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 To be kind, To be helpful, To network *Earthwise ... For Life!* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Nov 11 22:25:15 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:55:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC In-Reply-To: References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52819F9B.6040003@itforchange.net> Snehashish I am not able to find them online. Please find them as enclosed since these were shared with WGEC members, and I have checked with the chair that these are public documents. parminder On Monday 11 November 2013 08:06 PM, Snehashish Ghosh wrote: > Dear All, > > Are the transcripts from the 2nd Meeting of WGEC archived online? > A link would be really helpful. > > Thank you. > > Regards, > Snehashish > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: > > Dear people, > > Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant > in the > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting > just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest > edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in > Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. > > In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the > advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this > phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always > taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to > suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet. > > Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda > (attached in > PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be > changed > -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if > it has > not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as > such, > and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the > Internet > requires periodic revisions. > > The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate > the IGF > should follow, as described in its paragraph 72: > > ------ > 72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive > process, > to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum > for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance > Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to: > > a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet > governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, > security, > stability and development of the Internet. > > b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and > discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body. > > c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and > other > institutions on matters under their purview. > > d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in > this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific > and technical communities. > > e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to > accelerate the > availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing > world. > > f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing > and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from > developing countries. > > g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the > relevant > bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > recommendations. > > h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in > developing > countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. > > i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS > principles in Internet governance processes. > > j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet > resources. > > k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and > misuse > of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users. > > l) Publish its proceedings. > ------ > > It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF. > First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a > process-oriented > forum, not merely a sequence of events. > > Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be > generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which > have been basically ignored by the UN. > > The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components > of its > mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda > have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG > (which > is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed > basically > on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the > expertises needed to carry out this challenge . > > It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or > might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it > might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process. > > As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced > cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for > Development > (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN > General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has > revealed some worrying weaknesses . > > The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the > production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There > were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from > civil > society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the > business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing > countries. > > It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including > the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs > for the > APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable > idea of > the various views of the working group in relation to themes of > cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is > attached in PDF] > > The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal > the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis > Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet > Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively, > significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics > possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. > Group > difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to > try to > group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific > group > ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The > perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the > WGIG > and the WSIS process is inevitable . > > One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants > are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not > necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something > similar > to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty > for both > the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified > report. > > Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this > process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I > relate > below. > > A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an > interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and > possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for > easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of > the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and > consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their > suggestions: > > ------ > Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and > Observers > > 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a > reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living > document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and > responsibilities of all participants; > > 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were > defined > by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these > roles > were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva > Declaration of Principles; > > 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it > and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance; > > 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended > in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75; > > 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for > Enhanced Cooperation; > > 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms spring into existence organically > as they are needed and that there is no need to create new > mechanisms > in a top down manner; > > 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to > understand > internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking > into account, its multi-stakeholder nature; > > 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda > defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation; > > 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that > are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion > Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the > larger IGF community; > > 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the recommendations of the CSTD > WG on > IGF Improvements including its mandate to give advice to the > functional > Internet governance and management organizations; > > 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the > IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related > matters > within their mandates; > > 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use > the IGF > process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other > stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an > equal > footing; > > 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to > participate in the IGF. > > 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all > stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing > organisations and > to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced. > ------ > > In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but > essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced > cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around > these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative > processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the > generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance. > > On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the > governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden: > > ------ > - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten > participation of > all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet > governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative > working methods such as remote participation. > > - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to > particpate > through capactity building, including but not limited to, training > programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing. > > - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and > consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates > affordable access for all stakeholders. > > - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to > empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework > that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights > online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support > mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships. > ------ > > At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can > help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- 6 November, 2013 Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation 10:00 a.m. Geneva, Switzerland (Gavel). >>CHAIR MAJOR: Ladies and gentlemen. (Gavel). >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good morning. Can you please take your seats. I would like to start in one minute. Thank you. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the second meeting of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. I hope we are going to have a fruitful meeting during the three days, as proof was we had the last time, which was much shorter but very efficient. I would like to greet the remote participants. I hope they are with us. And I would like to (indiscernible) to be members of the group. I would like to greet the observers who are with us. As I told you, this is the second meeting of the working group. And as usual, meetings start with the mandate. Probably you know it by heart -- (beeping) -- but it is always useful to reiterate what the mandate of the group. The mandate from the United Nations General Assembly resolution, resolution 67/195/2012, which invites the Chair of the CSTD to establish a working group on enhanced cooperation -- (beeping) -- to examine the mandate of the 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. The second part is issue a report to the CSTD in 2014. Looking at the mandate, I think we are in a relatively good position. We have already fulfilled the first part that we were seeking and compiling the input. And we had a summary which was sent out to the members of the group and which has been posted on the Web site. Next one, please. Just a day before yesterday, I attended a presentation on a presentation where the owner and the CEO of the software explained to us that PowerPoint is always full of bullet points and full of text, and I think he was right. Unfortunately, my presentation had already been written at that time so I managed to get one picture in it which shows the process we are going through. So we have talked about the United Nations General Assembly's resolution. The working group has been established. We seek the inputs from the stakeholders. And right now, we have to review the inputs. And, finally, we have to give some recommendations to the CSTD next year with the view that there would be a resolution passed to the ECOSOC. And, finally, it goes back to the United Nations General Assembly. What I expect from this meeting, I expect that we will respect the mandate, and I will make my best that it is going to be like that. I would like to call your attention that we are a group constituted of all stakeholders; that is, a multistakeholder approach. And last time I think we have managed to establish the mutual trust, and it was very useful. That was the reason the meeting was really successful. The meeting -- last time we decided to have allow observers to the meeting, and we also decided that ECOSOC rules apply. In this meeting, we have observers. We have remote participation. We have audio streaming, if I'm not wrong. And, hopefully, we have scribes who are going to give us transcripts of the meeting. So all the promises were kept we have made last time, and I hope this will contribute to the success of this meeting. Naturally, we have to keep in mind that we have some constraints. We have time constraints. We have resources, which are very scarce. And we have the -- I was really afraid that we have constraints as far as the venue's concerned, but right now I'm happy to see there are still some seats which are available. And, hopefully, the members of the group will arrive. I have already received some minutes from some members about late arrival, so I hope they will make it to Geneva. And I think they will contribute also to the success of our meeting. Next one. We had the first physical meeting last May, on the 30th of May and the 31st of May. We decided to have further meetings, three days each. This is the second meeting we have. And based on the results we achieve today, we may have one or two more meetings. It is up to you. In case we have two meetings, I would suggest to have it in January and February. But we are going to discuss it later. However, I have to make my report by the end of February, beginning of March and submit the recommendations hopefully to the CSTD in May. So I'm very optimistic, as usual. I count on you for the cooperation, and I hope that we're going to achieve good results in a very particular period we are in now. But at the same time, I have to tell you that I think we are in a privileged position. We are in a position where we can contribute to something which is very important, and I would like to call your attention to this fact that we should take this meeting in this spirit. We are privileged to be in this group and to be in this discussion. You may recall that during the first meeting, we had a very long discussion about the agenda, the procedural issues. And we had breakout groups led by Brazil and India. In the breakout groups, we identified categories and the suggested questions. I think this approach was very useful. This was really very useful. It allowed us to have very open discussions, and then we got back to the plenary. We managed to finalize the questions in a very short while and the result of it was the questionnaire which you know by heart, I think. So I have to emphasize again, that the first meeting, we had excellent collaboration, and I hope that we are going to continue this way. As I mentioned, we agreed at the meeting to have all the facilities, that is, all the streaming, the transcript, and we agreed with the remote participation. And the real result was the questionnaire which has been posted and sent out to the members of the group. Next. What are the resources for our second meeting? Basically I think -- (feedback in the audio). Okay. So this is not the resource oddly. Well, first of all, the first resource is the questionnaire itself, which is more important for the contributions from the respondents. You may note that the responses were grouped by questions at one time and then they were grouped by respondents as well. We found that we had about 1,000-page contributions, which you can't handle in a meeting like that. The idea came that eventually we should have a summary of the responses and the summary has been prepared and has been sent out to you and also has been posted on the Web site. I give the link to the Web site on the slide. And probably in case you have difficulties, which I think you may have difficulties finding still things on the CSTD Web site, so here's the link. And probably if you still have difficulties, you can come to the secretariat and they will help you. Next slide. So the questionnaire was made up 18 questions. One was about the stakeholder itself. One question was a quite open question in case we missed something. And, basically, it reflected the consensus of the working group on topics relevant to the enhanced cooperation. We had an extended deadline, which was the 17th of September. I have extended it, I think, twice or three times and -- next one. In the end, we have 69 responses. The 69 responses, you can see the distribution of these responses. We had 29 governments, 23 civil society, 11 technical community and academia and eight businesses. It's -- I leave it to you to judge whether this is enough or it's few. That's what we have. I think the responses gave us a very, very rich input for future work. After analysis of the responses, I suggested to group the responses. That is, in five groups to facilitate all future work. In group A, they are the replies related to the implementation of the Tunis Agenda and these are questions 2 and 3. Group B replies related to public policy issues and possible mechanisms, questions 4, 8 and 9. In group C, we have replies to stakeholders, questions, 5, 6, 7, 14 and 17. In group D, we have replies to developing countries which are questions 10 and 15. And, finally, in group E, we have replies to barriers for participation in enhanced cooperation which are questions 11, 12, 13 and 16. What are we going to do in the second meeting? Well, first of all, we have to agree on the agenda and the procedural questions. After having agreed on that, probably we should identify and agree on topics and categories; that is, the grouping I've suggested to you. And we have to discuss responses to the questionnaire. During the meeting, we are going to create a rolling document which will reflect the discussions we are having now. And to my best hope, on the third day, we may start drafting recommendations. I know this is very ambitious, but we have to do it. And, of course, there are some other issues to be discussed as we decide on the date of the next meeting. What I suggested is for the time management, we have all meetings starting in the morning at 10:00 and we have the meeting in the morning up until 1:00 in the afternoon. In between, I would suggest you have a segment for observers, a 15-minute segment for observers that they may take the floor and give any observations they have and then we will have a coffee break, also 15 minutes. So probably it will be kind of flexible, but that's what I suggest. We will have a lunch break from 1:00 to 3:00. And in the afternoon, we will have a kind of similar arrangement. That is, we will have our discussions and we will have an observer segment from 4:15 to 4:30 followed by again a coffee break, and we shall work until 6:00 in the evening. Frankly speaking, I don't intend to go beyond 6:00. Naturally, if it's needed, of course, we can do it. But I have been reminded that the room is available up until 7:00, 7:30. But I don't believe that we will use this time. It's my best hope that we're not going to do that. So, basically, these were the introductory remarks. As for the observers, we have to respect the rules of the ECOSOC. That is, member states who are not members of the working group can take the floor first and other observers can follow. But I would like to remind you that this is a working group. We came here to work. We came here not to make statements but to make recommendations. And in this spirit -- and I think you share this approach, I sincerely hope you do -- so I would like to encourage you to contribute in this sense. So after that, I would suggest that we go directly to the agenda. And probably you have it. Can you share it with us? Thank you. So, basically, the agenda reflects what I said in my introductory remarks, including the time management. It's more general than what I think we should be doing. It doesn't talk about the grouping, but I really encourage you that we should work in this way; that is, take the groups of questions and discuss them in groups by topics. So I ask you if the agenda is acceptable. Yes, Marilyn. Before you take the floor, I would like to ask you to identify yourself always shortly. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. My name is Marilyn Cade. I'm one of the participants from the business community. And greetings, all colleagues. It is a pleasure to be back together. My only comment -- And I want to thank you for the preparation both that you have put together and the time you've dedicated, Chair, but also to the secretariat. My only comment -- actually it is twofold. One is perhaps as we get into the discussion, we may find the need to flexibly adjust the agenda. Some of the questions, responses may take more detailed discussion than others. And so I'd like to ask for that. And then, secondly, if we could ask the secretariat to make your presentation -- to send it out to the full list. It is a bit challenging to find the information on the Web site, and it would be great to have your presentation and any other documents e-mailed out to the full list so that we could keep in touch on documents that are presented in the room. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. Naturally, the agenda will be flexible. We will follow whatever is the natural way of discussion. As for my presentation, I have made the last update this morning. Probably it was about 9:30. So -- but you will have the presentation, and I think it's already on the Web site. And to find things on the CSTD Web site, I would go with it is not a challenge but a kind of test of ability of how you manage to get around. It's really to test your capabilities. So having said that, any other comment on the agenda? Do we agree that we go by the way I suggested; that is, grouping the questions as they were? Okay, in that case the agenda is accepted. (Gavel). One thing I want to add, I mentioned that in the first meeting, we worked in a mixed way. By that I mean we worked in one part of the meeting in plenary mode and then we had the breakout groups. I would suggest that we should do the same way depending how our discussion is going to proceed to discuss questions in breakout groups, then come to the plenary, and have the whole plenary involved in the further discussions. We shall see how it goes, but I think this was a very efficient way of doing things. The breakout groups won't discuss different issues. They will discuss the same issues. And they will probably come to some kind of conclusion, and these conclusions can be merged. And that is the idea. But given the time and especially the amount of work we have to do, I think we should find always the best way to proceed so that is the way I suggest. So I really suggest to go straight to group Number 1 and attack the questions which are in group Number 1. That is Questions 2 and 3. I would give you some two minutes to go through Questions Number 2 and 3 and look through the analysis of these questions and eventually, if you wish, you can go to the responses as well. This allows us to solve some kind of technical problem we have with the audio streaming. Please take your time and look into the Questions 2 and 3 and we shall resume in two minutes. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So I can see that you are ready to discuss questions 2 and 3. So just to remind you, Question Number 2, "What do you think is the significance, purpose, and scope of enhanced cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda?" And Question Number 3, "To what extent has or hasn't enhanced cooperation been implemented?" So the floor is yours. So based on the input we have, and based on the analysis which has been provided to you, I would like to ask you to do your contributions but try and restrict yourself to what I said in my initial remarks, to the mandate we have, to the agreed text we had, and try to discuss in this way. Yes, Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to all colleagues. First of all, I want to congratulate you personally for the amount of work invested and for the document which is provided to us. As you have indicated, you had the challenge to deal with so many contributions and the document, the analyses of the responses I think is a very good basis for our work. Of course, there are some notions, some nuances that are not captured into this document and I -- I understand there will be plenty of opportunity to come back to some things that are missing there from the perspective of participants would be important. However, I think it really captures most of the essence of what we should be discussing today and in our next meetings. The point I want to make is that I think that maybe we should, on the basis of the compilation we have before us, try to identify what are the core issues that require discussion among us. Even taken into account there are different approaches to the way the questions are framed, I feel there is a large degree of consensus around some issues, the recognition of progress made, on the recognition of the value of working a multistakeholder environment. Depending on the participants, the emphasis is put on -- more on the aspect of having a half glass that is full or half glass that is empty. But I think there is some large degree of consensus that we have moved forward, to a large extent, since 2005. But I can also feel that even for those who agree that enhanced cooperation, to some extent, is already taking place and that maybe do not have -- do not need new mechanisms but need to -- even for these little things that we need to improve (typing) I think there is one notion we should maybe discuss, what we need to improve on existing mechanisms and on the other hand, as I go through the responses, on the other hand we have a group of participants that say that something else should be there. So I think maybe decided to -- maybe basic notion should be worked around in order to implement the mandate we have to provide advice on how to fully implement -- fully implement from the part of the conclusion what we have and if needed to come up with something else that would add to this. I think we should -- as you, Chair, have indicated, not lose time around issues that are consensus among us. The recognition of the multistakeholder model, the value of what we have achieved so far. That we have tried to focus on things that have emerged as differences and try to elaborate, if possible, to come to some consensus on these. Otherwise, to explicitly spell out what are the differences so we can come up with some meaningful document for the report. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ambassador. I understand what you're saying. How I would like to lead this group is first come to questions where we do have common understanding because in my mind we have to give them some kind of mutual trust and mutual understanding and then we can discover the differences. So if we agree that on some issues -- and I hope there are really many issues that we agree on -- then we can discuss those ones which we do not agree on and we can come to some kind of common understanding and try to understand each other, what we don't think is right, what we don't think is -- hasn't -- which hasn't been implemented. So I really encourage you first to come to this way of building this mutual trust and further building the mutual trust. But at the end of the day, I think we do agree that we have to come up with recommendations in the spirit you mentioned, how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation. I do agree with that. Probably I have a kind of slightly different approach. I would like to build on the consensual issues first, and it would give us some -- let's face it, good feeling and then we can build on that. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you very much, Chair, and to a very good morning to all colleagues in the room. And it's good to see so many familiar faces. We've sat through a fairly good amount of time last time in the last meeting. I think at the outset allow me, Mr. Chair, to formally congratulate you on behalf of my delegation for your commitment and your -- I would use the word "leadership" in guiding the process. The effort that has gone into so far in preparing a kind of questionnaire followed by responses received and thereafter a report has been prepared, a summary, I think you have been very careful in using the word "summary" rather than saying -- attributing any particular notion to (indiscernible) or otherwise it is responses that have been received. I think it is good. Firstly, the approach that you recommended, we fully support this. And also I'd like to acknowledge one colleague's recommendation that to keep the agenda a little flexible so that we place it according to the rhythm and so the progress we would be making as we go along. So these are the two, I think, pillars on which we can proceed. Thirdly, just a quick comment on India's responses and certain changes that we have reflected towards the last (indiscernible). Just to inform colleagues in the room that with regards to questions 6 and 8, we of course submitted after the due date, just a recognition to be -- to be made in this room that India has data it supplied on Question Number 6 and 8, which we have forwarded to the Secretariat and we hope that we will bring to the discussion forum as we go along. That's the first point I would like to make. Coming to the replies that have been received as far as the report that has been submitted, I think it's important at the outset to make certain recognition of the fact that it is a fairly small sample of responses that we have received, which is known by the numbers, the very fact that there are so many responses only. But the -- the beauty of the responses as we see it is that they cover a large and entire diversity of opinions that we -- we have been hearing and we have been -- we have heard in the earlier discussions. So we have the advantage of reflecting on those opinions as we go along. At the same time, I think -- actually a particular direction which responses have given I think we need to be slightly cautious on that. So we will be making the distinction as we go along, because in the agenda you have designed that we move towards, based on the responses that we have received, we would make steps forward, next steps forward. I guess that is the right way to do things, but again, with this little caution, that we would like -- at least my delegation would like to bear in mind which we thought it's good to let it be known. As regard to the response 2 and 3, which is to the five categories that you have proposed, I think if we could respond to these five categories of questions, I think we would have covered the entire spectrum to which we have recommended -- the desire which we have started we will achieve. We fully endorse this five categories approach and thereby now you focus on Question 2 and 3. Again, from our perspective, we have categorically said not much progress has been made, but when we said this it is specific to paragraph 68 and 69 of the Tunis Agenda. But there is recognition certainly that the very fact that we have been able to look at things starting in 2005 till now, it is -- there's no denying of this fact that there is an enhanced cooperation already taking place. Again, at what levels? There are many stakeholders in this process and as a representative of the government in this working group, we find that it is lacking, to a large extent. And there is recognition to this fact, and again, going through this process of looking at Tunis Agenda as a basis. So with that in mind, I think we -- we would like to see a kind of -- a kind of a determination at this point in time. Because if you say that we made progress and we achieved everything, then the rest of the questions have no relevance in this room. I mean, let's face it. I think we need to be realistic and we need to be practical in our own approach. So I do agree with our distinguished ambassador from Brazil who said that it's a half glass -- half full or half empty, but at the same time, yes, there is a recognition that there's a gap and we need to see what gap's are there and what, perhaps, would be the most appropriate recommendation that we can make. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. I'm really grateful for your remarks. One point I want to emphasize that we have taken the sample input, and some inputs have arrived late, but it doesn't prevent us to work, taking into consideration the replies we received. And naturally at the end of the day, as I always said, we have to do the work, the bulk of the work. And you can contribute naturally the way you would like to. And you can always express your views in the way you like to. So this is only a basis, the input, but the real work is going to be done here. And as for the Questions 2 and 3, whether the glass is full half or full empty, I'm always optimistic and I say it's full half. So let's fill the other half. Let's work in this way. I can see United States and then Parminder. >>UNITED STATES: Thank you very much, Chairman. This is, as you say, the United States. On behalf of my delegation I would be want to congratulate you for taking the -- for taking the daunting task of looking at a record of something like 1,000 pages and summarizing it to 25 pages. This is -- we were -- as I say, we offer our thanks. We had some of the same concerns and -- or perhaps observations is the way to put it, as the ambassador from Brazil and the last speaker from India. And by that, I would just summarize it in this way, that we recognize that there are challenges before us in terms of the work of this group. We recognize at the same time we have a very useful and helpful summary that identifies topics of real concern. We agree with the Brazilian ambassador, if we've understood it correctly, that not everything is captured in the -- in the 25-page summary, and that it's even fair to say that some things are missing. And I would just join hands with colleagues in wanting to make sure that we have a record, if you will, a summary, if you will, that represents, I think as Brazil put it, the core interests. I think in our words, the priority interest of countries and regions so that as we move to develop recommendations we are well-informed as to what countries and entities are thinking, what they think is good and what they need. So Chairman, just to offer our support in whatever way we can support putting that information together so that we are -- that we are -- that we have a strong foundation for reliable recommendations. We do have some ideas, but I'll stop right there and just offer our thanks to you and to join with other colleagues and recognize that this is a very helpful first step. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. You may remember that when I sent out the analysis of the questions, in my e-mail I mentioned that this is definitely a document which is not meant to replace the original contributions in the first -- it is not meant to be the only input. It is just to help with the further work. And I think it might be quite useful to streamline. I saw Parminder and Sweden. Sweden was first? Okay, Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks to the Secretariat for all the hard work. It has really been a mixed pleasure to go through all those pages. Those first that have not only waited for the summary but also that have read all the responses, but I think mostly it has been a pleasure because of the very well-thought answers and the wide range of opinions that are reflected in those answers. So we're very encouraged by that. We also obviously recognize, as stated by others, that this does not maybe reflect everyone's opinion. There is a limited number of answers, but we also would like to echo what was said by India, that it does at least give a very wide range of answers and we think that that is very good as a basis to start our work here today. Also, I would like to echo what was said by the Brazilian ambassador, that we think when we have read through these answers that it's quite encouraging to see that there are a lot of areas that we have consensus on, and we agree with the Chairman's approach that we should try to focus maybe first on those areas and then as a second step we should of course also try to see if we can find a convergence in the areas where there are outstanding issues. And I think also, it's important that we keep in mind when we discuss these issues, particularly maybe Question 2 and 3, that we have different interpretations of the concept of enhanced cooperation, and it's important that we respect the fact that we have different interpretations. I think that's the best basis we can have to move the work forward. But again, thank you for all your hard work and looking forward to working with everyone here. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. I'm Parminder Jeet Singh from India, IT for change. And good morning to everybody. And thank you, Chair and Secretariat, for putting together this excellent summary. And I heard observations that it does not capture everything which was always never possible, but I think what we have here is a basis to work on, a certain amount of categorizations which can then be filled, and then I think agreement categories initially is more possible and easier to work on and as we progress I would suggest that we do try to make categories of things and agree on categories first. And once you -- because categories are easier to agree on rather than specific viewpoints. And I also agree with India that these five categories which you have bunched the questions under look like a good way for us to work on rather than the questions one by one. As we agree on categories and then move categories to certain recommendations. And now I come to the questions under consideration which is 2 and 3. I think on 2, whether it has been fully implemented or not, I think people have exhausted their responses and there are all kinds and I would take a message of values view that. Let's focus on the fact that there is an agreement that's not fully implemented and talk about what are the gaps and that is kind of a consensus, that there is something which needs to be done rather than going back and forth. And agree whether it's fully implemented or not. And the gap part of it, what needs to be -- what needs to be done to fully implement what we do here and then remove other things out and that is something for us to work on. The fact that we all agree. And the response, there are public participations which need to be addressed which are not being addressed and that fact remains, and that is the focus of our work here today. And on the second question which is about the scope and the purposes, again, being tactical and going to the Tunis Agenda, I can see that again, categories is important and Tunis Agenda gives two or three categories. It says that the general public policy issues, there are public policy issues connected to critical Internet resources and there's a third basket which enhanced cooperation doesn't cover which is the day-to-day operations and these three baskets are there. And once you know there are three baskets, three areas, then this is something which Tunis Agenda has and I don't think is very controversial. And these categories are made without specifically committing to any view on -- under each you could possibly make progress. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. I can hear agreement, or partial agreement, on the categories we have, the groupings we have. I could also hear that probably, you know, we should sometime fall back to the Tunis Agenda, which naturally we do. However, we should also respect the mandate and we should discuss what is in the mandate, and I don't really think we should go beyond, unless we have some modification from the General Assembly end of this year. Having said that, are there any other contributions on these issues? I would remind you that we are discussing first matter issues go by the groups I suggested and second, in case we do, then which I think we had some kind of consensus but it's -- it may be a good way to discuss these issues, by groups, and if it is accepted, then we go by group 1, and we have Question Number 2 and 3. So I would like to hear your opinion on these two issues. Grouping is acceptable to all of us? Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, colleagues. First, thank the secretariat for the work that has been done and to facilitate our hard work. And we support the way forward to the meeting. I mean, with regard to question 2 and 3, I mean, the responses shows there's -- it is implemented, (inaudible), it is not implemented very well. We look forward to the output of this meeting, I mean, to come up with a recommendation to fully implement the mandate of the Tunis Agenda (indiscernible). One more comment, that the Saudi's response is the government's response by CITC. So I mean, if we can update it that it is the Saudi government. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. It is going to be done. Yes, Virat. >> VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, on my behalf and on behalf of the business, a big thanks to the secretariat and to yourself for arranging the text in the manner that you have done. It is quite spectacular to see a thousand pages down into 27, 26, depending how printouts have been taken or copies have been seen at. I just want to make one point about a general comment which is just as the delegate from India suggested we should leave it to discuss at a later stage on where we are going in terms of progress, et cetera, even though there are some basic agreements that are emerging right now, it would be helpful to also keep our mind open to while agreeing on categories that you have recommended in general, that some questions at some stage might need to move or partially move across categories. And if we can keep that flexibility as a principle in mind just as we would keep ourselves flexible towards the movement of -- in attempt to draft recommendations towards the end of this meeting. I think that would be helpful just so that we don't have it cast in concrete in the first one hour. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I think this was a very useful remark. And, naturally, I don't think everything is cast in concrete. So during the discussions, naturally, we will find that some issues may belong to more than one group, and we shall bring back these issues. Of course, we are going to be quite flexible as we did in the previous working group, and that's what we're going to do right now with your agreement. Any other contributions regarding groups, grouping, the approach we are taking and more concretely Group Number 1, Questions Number 2 and 3? It may be still too early. There's a remote participant. Yes, we are waiting for your intervention. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Joy Liddicoat here. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Hello, Joy. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, colleagues, for the introductory remarks. I also wanted to thank the secretariat for organizing this meeting and also to (indiscernible) in relation to the agenda announce that there are a number of remote participants, and we would ask on behalf of them, that those in the room do speak clearly and slowly so that the transcription and audio can catch their wide words. And also that if the group determines some group discussion is appropriate that we have some way to facilitate -- think about how to facilitate and ensure remote participation of the working group members. And I thank you, Chair, for your indulgence with the technicalities on that. Secondly, in relation to the summary and the submissions, I wanted to just acknowledge all of the submissions that have been received, and especially those from civil society, and to note that the summary, while it intends to catch both (indiscernible) and categories, I think it is clear that the summary is not -- it has been talked about a thousand pages of submissions. And there are some (indiscernible) for submissions. so I would ask that we refer to the submissions themselves and all of the work that's gone into those submissions by focusing on those and resisting the temptation to refer to the summary itself. Particularly, I notice that there are some submissions which have not been cited in the summary, for example. Thank you. Those are my initial remarks. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. Well, you reminded me of one of the obligations, that is, I didn't thank all those who have contributed to the work by answering the questionnaire. So I acknowledge all the work which has been done. So the breakout groups, I'm having also some concerns about the participation -- the remote participations, so I have to make some kind of decisions as far as the efficiency of our work versus the extent of participations. Probably the issue wouldn't come up until tomorrow afternoon or Friday morning. So we shall sort it out amongst ourselves. But we don't have to forget that the main task ahead of us is to give recommendations. And that is the -- what is in the mandate. So, eventually, we may have some restrictions -- technical restrictions from participations remotely. But I promise you that in the plenary, everything goes back to normal. As for the late submissions, naturally, we had to set limits and we had to deal with submissions which came within the extended target dates. So I fully agree that all submissions are extremely valuable, but we had to set some kind of time limit to consider submissions in the summary itself. It doesn't exclude them, however, to be discussed here but to be considered by this group. Any other contributions? Yes, ISOC. >> ISOC: Thank you, Chair. Allow me to start by commending the work of the secretariat. It is a remarkable work and extremely useful. I think the report is comprehensive and certainly offers a very good basis for our discussion. I would note that as expected the document mirrors a various positions on enhanced cooperation and multistakeholderism and this is not a surprise. However, there seems to be consensus on the fact that enhanced cooperation is already underway in some forms or another. There is room for improvement, of course, but progress was made since 2005 both in terms of enhancing cooperation between intergovernmental organizations and governments but also in terms of developing working relationships, trusted working relationships, among all stakeholder groups including civil society, business and the technical community. And I think this is very positive and encouraging. It is a very positive trend on which we can work. Another important consensus is remarkable around the value of the existing decentralized Internet ecosystem. And that came clearly through the reports that you shared and that the IGF, including national and regional IGFs, have a key role to play in furthering enhanced cooperation in the future. Overall, I think in terms of terminology, in terms of methodology, it is important for our group to build on areas where we can identify common ground and consensus such as the consensus I just described. And I'll just conclude by saying that the technical community is looking forward to working with all its colleagues towards a positive outcome. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I can see no one asking for the floor. So can I conclude that we agreed on the way -- the approach I suggested? Yes, Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Sorry, Chair. Marilyn Cade. But would you now turn to the observers then for their comments before we conclude on this topic? Is that how we're going to proceed so we hear from observers before we move to new topics? >>CHAIR MAJOR: We are not going to conclude on the topic. We are going to conclude on the approach we are going to work. I will ask the observers after we agreed on the approach. So can I conclude that we agree on the approach? Okay. And having said that, we have already discussed point Number 1 or Group Number 1 with Questions 2 and 3. But I don't think we have concluded on that. So now I turn to observers, if they have any comments. Please be brief in case you take the floor and identify yourself when you take the floor. Anyone from the observers who would like to comment? Yes. >> MATTHEW SHEARS: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. It is a pleasure to be here. I just thought it would be useful for everybody if, perhaps, also, in my case, I introduce myself so you're aware of who are the observers are. My name is Matthew Shears. I am the director for Global Internet Policy and Human Rights with the Center of Democracy and Technology. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Yes? >> Thank you, Chair. I would just like to follow what Matthew said. I'm here on behalf of Global Partners, an Internet policy organization based in the United Kingdom. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. >> SAMANTHA DICKINSON: I'll just follow the pattern. I'm Sam Dickinson. I was a member on the last CSTD working group on IGF improvements, and I'm a freelance Internet governance consultant. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. In case we don't have any other intervention, I suggest to have the coffee break now. It's well-deserved. And probably after coffee break, we come back at quarter to 12:00. So this time I'm going to be to be very generous. We are going to have half-an-hour coffee break. But, please, make sure that during the coffee break, you work. You have the important conversations and discuss the issues. Thank you. So we come back at quarter to 12:00. [ Break ] (Gavel). >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for being on time. Please take your seat. So good morning again. I have one small announcement. We have a box here, and I would like you to put your business card. I'm told by the secretariat that unfortunately there's no prize at the end of the meeting and there's no drawing and you are not going to win anything. But you are kindly requested to put your business card for the record. Frankly, I would have liked to have some prize, but anyway... So I hope you had a very pleasant coffee break and during the coffee break you had opportunity to discuss the issues we have had before the break. And I would like to resume the meeting by saying that we have agreed on the approach, that we are going to discuss the issues by groups. Naturally, the groups aren't rigid, so the questions in the groups may be reclassified or some parts of them may be reclassified to other groups, but it is really up to us. I have also made clear that the bulk of the work is going to be done here, meaning that in case you think you have made some contributions and you think to change or modify or to update it, probably you can do it by eventually distributing a room paper. I don't think that this is the time to do it on the Web site. But I would like to emphasize again that we shall take all the considerations into account and it will be done during the meeting. So this is -- I think it is quite important. It's our task to give the recommendations. So having said that, let's go back to our work. We have started the review of the first group and the two questions in the first group. I concluded that there was a kind of general feeling about the glass being half empty or half full. As I told you, I tend to be of the opinion to be on the positive side, and let's say it's half full and let's discuss how to make it completely full. Any observations on questions 2 and 3 or any other observation on what we have discussed up till now? Good. We are going at a very good pace. So I suggest, in that case, that we go to group 2 and I leave you some time to go through the questions we have in group 2. I believe probably an additional five minutes will be enough for you to go through and to have your ideas and your contributions prepared for the group. So I give you five minutes and we start discussing group 2 and the questions in group 2. (Silence). >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I believe you have had time to review what we are going to talk about, question 4, 8 and 9. And I have been informed that Joy Liddicoat wants to take the floor. Joy, the floor is yours, remote participant. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Peter. I just want to make a point about the submission summary which we have been reading. I just want to note and put on the record that there is an error in the summary, particularly the first one on page 4 which purports to cite the Association for Progressive Communication's submission. It is actually citing the Best Bits submission. And, in fact, all of the APC references in the document appear to be to that Best Bits' submission. And I'm just very concerned about that because their submissions are actually different and make different points. I also note that in reference to a (indiscernible) submission here which does not appear in the list of submissions but it appears to be a government submission. So I'm just a little bit concerned about the focus of our discussions being reliant on this document. And I'm wondering how we might deal with that. One option is to deal with it as a document in the room, not as a matter of record. But I think some guidance from the other working group members on this point. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. It is very useful. Probably this is not the only error we have in it. And thank you for pointing out these errors. I'm sure this will be corrected in a very short while. As I said at the outset, this is a kind of attempt to streamline and downsize the contributions to help us to work, taking into account there may be some errors in it. And I made it also clear that this is not -- it doesn't replace the contributions that we received. Our discussions will be based on the contributions and, more importantly, on the work we are going to do here or remotely you may contribute. But I promise you errors pointed out will be corrected. ITU. >>ITU: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I just wanted to highlight a paragraph on page 4, A special remark from a civil society organization on ideals, activities and its collaboration regarding plenipotentiary resolution 101, 102 -- there was a mistake there -- 102 and 133. We would just like to highlight ITU was working with the organizations listed and many of the organizations active in the area in the spirit of the plenipotentiary resolution. And we do report annually to our governing body's council and also other bodies on this cooperation. We would be happy to provide more information on this. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, (saying name). In this room, we are aware of the great work the ITU is doing, at least myself I am aware Any other comments? Yes, Parminder? >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. Parminder. And I think we would acknowledge that with this second set, we are into the meatiest part of our work. We are talking about public policy issues and gaps and the mechanisms that may be needed. And I wonder whether we should approach it -- I mean, otherwise, it is just too open-ended and we approach it through making certain categories. I mean, that would kind of, you know, make it a little more understandable, the kind of things we are talking about. For example, I heard in the morning the statement being made that everybody welcomes the decentralized architecture of Internet governance. The technical community representative said that. And even in the summary, we see that with regard to Internet governance, the majority of the respondents value the existing decentralized Internet governance ecosystem, which includes -- and it goes on. But a substantial group of respondents is also open to consider the launch of new mechanisms. Now, these actually are two different things. The ones who agree on the decentralized system which exists, I understand is already the technical and logical infrastructure system. A lot of people agree actually, including me, on that. The "but" part about people wanting a new mechanism largely refers to a very defense side of the enhanced cooperation landscape. And if we keep on talking across these areas, we would not make progress because people would say we agree to the existing decentralized systems. They are saying we need a new mechanism. And if we are talking about, for example, the public policy making, I'm talking about real public policy making, not about technical policies, I do not know what kind of decentralized system exists. And I'm ready for anybody to explain to me whether there is any decentralized system regarding public policy issues which are listed by many participants which could be net neutrality, which could be taxation issues, which could be education and health-related Internet things. There is a huge list. What kind of decentralized system exists regarding that? Because it doesn't for me. Therefore, we are talking about two different sets. As I said in the morning, if we talk about the technical policy making separately and other public policy making separately, we wouldn't be making this kind of cross-dialogue which has happened a lot in enhanced-cooperation discussions and may keep on happening. So I suggest we discuss the technical policy side and other public policies as two separate groups, and then we would know what are different people saying within that particular area rather than cross-talking. And just a last point about the public policy issues also, I think also the groupings can be made in this manner. Instead of going by each public policy issue -- because we are not here to give responses to those public policy problems but just to understand the landscape so we can give suggestions about institutional requirements. So in that sense, I understand there are three groups, once which one are being dealt adequately right now somewhere by someone. There are another set of public policies which are partly being dealt by some people but requires an Internet-related aspect to be dealt which is not being dealt. And the third group which is completely -- has no existing kind of reference at all. This also is mentioned (audio interference) which acknowledges that there are public policy issues which are not being addressed. So if we go by the fact there are three categories, then we could make progress with the corresponding requirements of institutional systems for each. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. That's very interesting remarks. Probably we shall think about your remarks. Now, the floor is Mr. Piazza. >>ANDRES PIAZZA: Yes, thank you. This is Andres Piazza, member of the technical community group. Three remarks in the same direction or at least with some consensus with the previous speaker. First of all, there's apparently -- I guess, we can understand that the value of the current model of the Internet organizations or, let's say -- (audio feedback) -- the decentralized ICT, the value of that system is not in question. I think this is one of the points. The second point regarding the role of the IGF could be also considered one of the key roles in the future. And this third point that could be highlighted regarding the other issues, the other policy issues that are not currently being addressed in any different forum, what (indiscernible), and I guess we should agree also in this. We can probably agree. There's no need to duplicate different forums. But if there is the need to create a specific forum, this forum should have multistakeholder representation and not only as observers but also in the decision-making as equal footing. This is the third point that should be highlighted. Thank you very much. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Andres. Marilyn, please. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. I'm going to build on, I think, a directional comment that Parminder just made by suggesting that, in fact, we are really into the meat of an area that needs substantial discussion. And this was what I was -- when I referenced the point earlier that I'd like to think we could be flexible about what responses fit into the categories, I'd like to propose we consider separating question 4 from question 8 and 9 and consider adding the question that comes later, which is about issues that are important to developing countries and think about looking at the list of submissions in question 4 -- and I'm probably blanking on the number -- I think that's question 15 and looking at those in a sort of side-by-side approach to understand -- because, for instance, we have where one respondent listed ten issues, another may have listed 46. But there are similarities and congruencies across the different lists that have been submitted. And that would be, to me -- because identifying -- what we're here to do is to try to understand the issues that need to be addressed under the framework of enhanced cooperation. And to Parminder's point, we're not answering the issues but we are trying to sort of put them into categories. The second comment I would make -- And perhaps Parminder would be welcome -- would welcome a friendly amendment or we could talk about this more. I think actually it's four groups, but it's somewhere between three and four. There are the topics that are underway today but can't -- the focus on them can be enhanced or strengthened. So that recognizes that public policy issues continue to evolve. And even if an issue is being addressed, there may still need to be strengthening or enhancing of the -- particularly in participation from developing countries, et cetera. Then there is the category of their partly being dealt with. The category that I think Parminder suggested, they are new. There is no existing reference place but we recognize them. And then I think there's a fourth category that is more about trends which may lead us to understand that we can't predict or close out the fact that there will be more public policy issues that will emerge as technology and the number of users and the role of the Internet and its uses continue to evolve. And that last one would -- you know, I might think that the right place to discuss those is the IGF, but I think it's worth having a conversation to make sure that we as the working group are thoroughly understanding this. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn, very useful. Virat, please. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Chairman, this is on the two comments made with regards to dividing up this group in Question 4 and the other two questions. I suppose that the issue of mechanisms is derived from the issues that we have or hope to face in the future. Because that's -- the mechanism is sort of built to deal with those issues, some that we have on the table, some that we can foresee, and others we might not be able to foresee right now. And I'm very thankful to the list that has been provided by various inputs that have come in, especially the one that you have listed in the summary which is the Brazilian government which is a reasonably large and quite extensive setup. And I'm sure there's some missing in this, but it's a good reference to begin with. And I suppose looking at Question 4 and the issue at hand which are under II listed in the mechanism section of the summary, it gives us a good idea to take this discussion forward as to which of these issues can be tackled in platforms which require multistakeholder approach and which you believe will require a different set of mechanisms. And just to -- that's what it's going to boil down to finally. What are we going to recommend in terms of how the mechanisms come into place that deal with the issues at hand. And I think the (indiscernible) is that if you would look at these issues, I think that discussion, even though we're not here to respond as Parminder said to these issues, but I suppose that gives us a very good idea on whether these issues can be dealt with only in a multistakeholder process or if there's anything else that exists out there which in turn will influence the mechanisms and also where that should be located. And including whether the current ones are good enough or they need to be extended or improved or more work needs to be done. But a focus on Question 4 and the issue is -- actually could be the debate of the entire dialogue for the next two days because that's where the issues are. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for that. Brazil, please. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and listening to what has been said before, I fully agree with those that express the need that we should focus and identify different categories of issues we want to tackle. In that sense, my view is that Questions 4 and 8 are closely linked because as we identify what our public policy Internet-related issues that we should work on from the point of view of enhanced cooperation, we should look at what are the current arrangements for that end and I think in the -- in the spirit of what has been said before in the (indiscernible) group that we should have a clear mapping of what we have. So if we can link important issues to existing mechanism arrangements and differentiate between things that are -- have been said before that have already been dealt with by, you know, a decentralized system and that might not require any particular work in that regard. In my opinion, even in that case, we should look -- from the point of enhanced cooperation -- how the work being done in this decentralized system could be better understood and better incorporated by other stakeholder. I think that could be better indeed an angle through which we could see the work being done in this decentralized format but then we should focus on questions, on issues that although have been tackled also by different institutions might require, might be benefited from some added platform or some added layer of interaction. And then there are other issues that do not have a clear focus, a clear home and maybe that should be the one that we should focus with more emphasis in our work. I can relate to many notions that were expressed and not captured in the compilation document you have provided to us, Mr. Chair. For example, when the Democratic Republic of Congo states that too many mechanisms kill the mechanism. You should just have to define the mission of the existing mechanisms. That then we might have a very clear understanding of what are those existing mechanisms and what could be done in order to provide for better interaction with other stakeholders. And then it feels comments that emerging and often issues that have no other global home could justify a new mechanism. So again, we must, I think, by looking at the issues, what are the existing -- the current mechanisms institutions are dealing with this and how we can improve on that and for those that are not there, what should we recommend to satisfy. And on -- superceding all these and on top of all of these, I would just refer to a notion that is dear to my delegation, to others, that irrespective of issues being dealt with by different institutions or not, there is something that in our point of view is required, is a platform that would allow for a holistic and integrated view of all issues and from the point of view of enabling government to have a better understanding and better tools to address Internet-related public policy issues. This is something that, in my opinion, needs -- would, let's say, provide not from the point of view of impacting or interfering with what is being done, for example by the decentralized system, but to allow governments to be best equipped. This is something that emanates from the vision we have and the focus we tried to have in the enhanced cooperation exercise that we are focusing on some keywords in regard to the definition of enhanced cooperation. We do know that this is not -- there's no consensus, but we are focusing on the needs to enable governments to -- and I think this is maybe at the core of the enhanced cooperation from the perspective of my delegation -- to enable governments to work around Internet-related public policy issues. Of course we are talking of multistakeholder environment. This is not something to be done exclusively by government, but from our perspective enhanced cooperation have a very clear focus-oriented approach. And we would like to propose this. But again, I think maybe the preliminary thing and I agree with (saying name) and others that said that maybe this is the crucial -- at the heart of the exercise, is to have different categories of issues that should be dealt with separately. Otherwise, we see a lot of confusion and people refer to Internet Governance and enhanced cooperation, sometimes mixed issues that are by nature substantially different. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ambassador. I think it's very, very useful and it seems to me we are getting clear what we are here to do. It's a very good guidance for me as well. Sweden, please. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. While we're looking at the answers, some of the answers, it's -- it is easy to see that trying to list all relevant public policy issues is a very difficult task. We all have our favorites. Certainly for us, some of the most pressing and important ones are the protection of human rights online, the protection of rule of law online, and the protection of free and open Internet that enables trade and commerce to flow freely. However, we think by looking -- when looking at the answers, some of the answers, that they're -- I think it was the Indian response and maybe also the response of Finland that there are -- there has been work done in this area before, looking at the Internet -- the working group on Internet Governance, for example, and the report coming out from that working group. You can see that there was an attempt to identify a group of categories rather than listing -- categories of topics rather than listing an extensive amount of topics itself. And I think it's about the issues relating to the infrastructure and management of Internet resources. It's the issues relating to the use of Internet. It's the issues that are relevant to the Internet but have an impact that is much wider, and issues relating to development aspects of Internet Governance. Maybe we should try to, to some extent, also base our work on what has already been done. And then on the question of new mechanism, we totally agree also with what -- the response that what is highlighted earlier from Congo, for instance, that too many new mechanisms or too many mechanisms doesn't necessarily do the work. We think that we should focus on how we can better utilize the existing foras and existing frameworks for Internet Governance, how that can be strengthened, how enhanced cooperation can be strengthened in the existing foras. But let's continue our discussion on that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. Just to quickly go through some of the proposals that are on -- that are under this group. Firstly, with regard to the Question 4, I think it is perhaps good instruction to please recollect and give some recognition to the work that has been done by the working group which was hit up earlier on Working Group on Internet Governance. That certain public policy issues have already been dealt with, have been at least identified and the five different groups. In fact, given the Tunis Agenda we have made sort of a recognition that that working group has helped us to identify a number of public policy issues that are related to Internet Governance. So I think we are not starting from a clean slate. It's not a new kind of area that we are talking for the first time. So to that extent, I think it would be useful to see if we can -- how best we can actually recognize. They've all been categorized into five separate groups. Again, taking from there, whether we need to work forward in terms of mapping as we've been discussing, whether any of the issues which -- which mechanisms are currently being handling and if, in our perspective, in our opinion is it sufficient. If it is not sufficient, work further needs to be done. I think such an approach would help us move forward quickly. And if anyone -- any delegation has an additional item to be added, a policy issue to be added, I think we all could be open in terms of how best -- in which category it is to be reflected. That is the first intervention as far as Question 4 is concerned. With regard to Question 8, in the morning we made a brief announcement that, you know, we have a data (indiscernible) response. I think it's time to perhaps to read it out and later on we will circulate in the room in the afternoon as a document. With regard to this question, the basic change would be towards the last paragraph. I would just read the addition of it and then say why we are saying this. And the addition goes that -- the last paragraph -- that after giving certain references to the various paragraphs in the Tunis Agenda we have a concluding paragraph states, thus it is a clear mandate for defining the mechanism for effective global Internet Governance. We have said that in our earlier reply. And thereafter we said what mechanism we have in mind, we will come back to you in the group. I read quote, unquote, I read, the U.N. General Assembly could embark on a creation of a multi-lateral body for formulation of international Internet public policies. The proposed wording should include all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in the Tunis Agenda and the WGIG report which is also part and parcel of this discussion. To continue further, such a body should also develop globally-applicable principles and public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. Unquote. So this is the addition we have formally proposed, and the reason for this is very clearly as articulated in the Tunis Agenda itself in paragraph 29, 31 to 35 and paragraph 60. I don't need to go into the detail. I think we're quite familiar with these paragraphs. It is our understanding and (indiscernible) that while is a recognition for the governments to act on an equal footing with each other, as has also been pointed out by our distinguished ambassador from Brazil and a few colleagues, that there is not that forum for the government to see this from a holistic manner, in a manner that where there is a responsibility for the government. Again, we are saying it is not an exclusivity, certainly not. It is -- it is what we call working together kind of an approach. With regard to Question Number -- relating to IGF and enhanced cooperation, I think it's important to recognize the contribution that the IGF has been making in enhancing the dialogue among the various stakeholders. I don't think there are absolutely any doubts about also work -- also worked on improving their working methods through various processes, and I think its contribution will remain very important to the whole process. The multistakeholder dialogue that we intend to embark upon. However, there is a subtlety which I think has been brought up in the Tunis Agenda and which has been reflected through the U.N. General Assembly resolution which was adopted last year which was 67/195 and also for the ECOSOC resolution which was adopted in the General Assembly relating to a recommendation from the CSTD has been adopted by ECOSOC where they have made a distinction between the two processes, that these two are very distinct processes and they compliment each other. That means there is kind of a constant and there's going to be a working togetherness as we go along. And they're not going to be at anyone's cost. This is two independent processes, and I think if you could make this recognition and work in that direction, perhaps our contribution in this working group would be very, very productive and also it will further strengthen the IGF processes that we have set in motion. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. Just a quick reflection. Some of us have participated in the IGF in Bali which was an exceptional opportunity. >> (indiscernible) >>CHAIR MAJOR: We already have some oversight. ( Laughter ) So coming back to the IGF, it was an excellent opportunity and even though I know, because I was behind some of the resolutions which you mentioned, the two processes are independent. I would modify, with your permission, it's interdependent. And we are complimenting each other, I believe. The IGF and enhanced cooperation. And there are very clear signs of that, just referring to the bilateral meetings we had during the IGF which were informal but still very helpful referring to bringing up policy issues during the main sessions which were extremely useful and I believe the process itself -- both processes itself are extremely helpful for each other. Now, I can hear different voices, different opinions which are not very far from each other. I have heard that some said that there need to be -- need to have a mapping of the existing processes. Some said that we have enough fora to discuss issues, that we have to be more precise about responsibilities and the scope of these fora. Probably this is a good way to start our discussions. I fully agree that Question Number 4 is one of the crucial if not the crucial question when we discuss the heart of the matter, and all other issues are defending what we think, which are important for the group. So having said that, I would like to note someone would like to take the floor? On this you want to take the floor? There's another flag up? Yeah. >>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair. I just want to follow on the intervention from the distinguished delegate from India and emphasize that what I -- what I understood from the findings of the consultation of the questionnaire that was distributed is that there is very clearly a verity of understandings of what enhanced cooperation means. And from my perspective we should not be rushing to conclusions. We should also take this opportunity that we have during these three days to identify what works on the basis of existing mechanisms. Again, within the findings we saw, for instance, that since its creation the IGF has acted as a catalyst for enhanced cooperations. I think if we are able to identify areas of consensus, then it would certainly be a very productive path leading to useful and agreed possible recommendations for the future. I think again it's very important to work on the basis of the verity of understandings of what enhanced cooperation means and the acknowledgment that for a large majority of stakeholders it is not necessarily solely about intergovernmental cooperation. It should include all stakeholder categories, including civil society, business, and the technical and academic community. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Constance. I've been listening very carefully what has been said, and I had the impression that most of the contributions mentioned that enhanced cooperation should be made, taking into account the multistakeholder approach. There was, however, I think some differences about the implementation, whether it should be a multistakeholder approach or should it be a kind of multi-lateral, that's what I heard, with advisers from other stakeholder groups. So it's up to us to give recommendations in this area. It is my impression that the majority expressed views, those who took the floor, for the multistakeholder approach, and this is one of the critical issues of our discussions, whether we recommend either way. So any reflection on that? Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. My reflection is first of all to -- I intended to follow on the comment that's been raised a couple of times that I want to be sure that we address and that is recalling for all of us that we have previously, when this group was set up, discussed the need for a form of a mapping exercise. We've also seen a call for that from some of the comments. And I want to go back to, I think we need to look at the submissions, particularly in Question 4, and have some kind of general agreement on what's in the list of topics before we start finding homes for them, with all recognition of the comments that have been offered about different models that might offer new mechanisms. We also -- I believe I've heard colleagues call for looking at how we strengthen and enhance existing mechanisms. And so I'd like to suggest we focus a bit more on mapping first and then coming back to the question of what are the range of approaches that could be looked at for strengthening and improving existing mechanisms or for looking at what new mechanisms, if any, are then to be discussed within this group. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. I have a question to you. When you are mentioning mapping exercise do you have something in mind which we should be doing right here, right now, or should it be left to the Secretariat, or what is your complete suggestion? >>MARILYN CADE: Well, particularly on Question 4, and then the other question I referenced, which I think is Question 15 about public policy issues which are of most interest to developing countries, I think, in fact, that's actually a quick process that can be done by looking at the submission of topics that have been contributed by the various submitters. There -- there's congruency for some of them. Some of them are more granular than others but do have a certain amount of, I think, the ability -- for instance, I would say that security and trust in the online world could include topics like child online protection or capacity building in dealing -- you know, I think it would be possible to begin to aggregate topics into categories. >>CHAIR MAJOR: An additional question, how do you see it to be done? Shall we create some kind of small working group within the working group itself and which would come back to us, though I can't see it being done during the plenary. Would it be useful to have an offline group and then come back to the plenary with the results? >>MARILYN CADE: Well, it might be interesting to understand if there's support in the room and colleagues who would like to work in that direction. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I'll let you think about the proposal, Marilyn. In the meantime, Jimson, you wanted to take the floor. >> JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you, distinguished chair, your excellencies, colleagues, ladies and gentleman. My name is Jimson Olufuye. The chair of Africa ICT Alliance. It's a private sector led ICT group for Africa. So I'm really very pleased to be one of the five business entities in this working group. Since this is the first time I'm speaking today, I want to really appreciate the Chair, the Secretariat, for the great job they've done. And I have no doubt we're going to continue in the exact same momentum. Well, the issues that pertain to Internet policy, with regard to developing country is also very closely related to what is of concern to developed countries. So I think just to align my thought with the view as expressed by Marilyn that it would be a good idea to outline all the subject matters or the areas of concerns and then map it really and then see where they are already functioning, where they are already actively being treated. I'm very much familiar with the core ideas which EU, African Union, and (indiscernible), that is my area. These are issues they are already discussing vigorously at that level. So if we're able to outline all those points, you can see where we have gaps. So if we have gaps, then surely let us take them on. We also know there will be many issues, many issues. It would be a good idea to see where (indiscernible) will fit in because the enhanced cooperation topic on the Internet is very dynamic and quite fluid. But as my colleague has already underscored, whatever will be done going forward has to be truly multistakeholder model. It's a great privilege that the private sector which I represent is also -- is also being considered seriously, and I think this as our issue shall continue in the interest of our citizens -- global citizens and citizens in the developing nation in particular. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Thank you, Jimson. I can identify Parminder and then Brazil. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. I first raised the flag to follow up on the Chair's observation about there being a kind of talk about whether we should follow a multistakeholder approach or a multilateral approach with stakeholder participation and consultations. This actually goes to the topic, cluster 3, which is the role of stakeholders. But I think the role of stakeholders is very much tied with both kind of issues and the mechanisms. And in that sense, it fits here. And that's pretty fine. However, I still think in case we need to go by categories -- and if that works, the mapping is fine with me because it is the nature of issues, not the specific issue, let's not get bogged down whether access is more important or network neutrality or trade issues or global taxation, that list is endless. And if we start doing that, I mean, that wouldn't be the most productive use of our time. We are talking about kinds of issues which require different kind of institutional responses which includes very prominently different roles of stakeholders. And that is a thing we're trying to kind of sort out today. And in that sense, again, when I hear multistakholder approach, I'm very comfortable when technical policy is being made. Corporate sectors who have a lot of expertise would come in perhaps on an equal basis and give their expertise because they are make standards. This is completely different from substantive public policy issues like when I read the Brazilian list and the issues are there and many other issues on the list: Cultural diversity, harmonization of national policies, trade and e-commerce, consumer rights, data protection and privacy rights. They are typical public policy issues. And if we are talking about actual public policy issues, I think we are touching the Holy Grail of democracy whether when corporate can be equal in decision-making along with a government. I don't know if that's the precise question you're talking about or even if a civil society actor can actually have a veto or actual role in decision-making. These are different sets of issues. The technical policy making is one set, oversight is a small other set, and other public policy issues which are substantive public policies and which Tunis Agenda says is the responsibility of governments is a different set of issues. And then I get confused when people say, Okay, we are agreeing about the multistakeholder approach. Then I'm fine when it is the technical side. Are we talking about the public policy issues side? Are we talking about global taxation on Internet issues? And what does that mean when we say every stakeholder has an equal right to be a part of the decision-making process? I think unless we separate things in categories, depending on different kind of mechanisms and different stakeholder roles, we would still be talking across areas and which would not be very conducive to our progress. And in that sense, if mapping is the way to go, mapping is fine. But mapping by the needs of institutional areas rather than whether developing countries need it or whether it is access or whether it is net neutrality. But mapping it according to the kind of issues which need different institutional responses and also perhaps different roles of stakeholders, which is an open question. But the categories, I understand, would be this. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. Brazil, please. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In my opinion, the way we deal with this set of questions will give the sense of the success or not of this group. I see a lot of confusion even among people who are actors, who operate in the Internet, a lot of confusion on those issues. And I -- in my opinion, it's not have one single formulation that encompasses all situations. There's no one solution, one side, that fits all for all the issues on the table. And this has been spelled out by Marilyn Cade, Parminder and others. So unless we have very clear differentiation between different contexts, any statement, for example, that some parties prefer the multistakeholder approach and opposition -- this would be artificial because we would be talking about different things. Even from the part of parties that favor a more multilateral approach, you get to some issues, for example, to my understanding, they do not challenge, for example,the kind of work that is being done with regard to engineering of the Internet. So there is no point, for example, for the ISTARs to be concerned about this when -- it's not addressing what they're doing. So I think we must differentiate. I think the idea of categories of issues is important. And the mapping exercise is important. I think it is, indeed, maybe a prerequisite for us to work, to have a clear understanding of categories and the mapping associated to it. You have asked whether we should do it now or -- it is a rather complicated question because on one hand, I think it is, indeed, the prerequisite for an efficient work. But if we start doing it now, it will not be efficient for us to do it. So I'll leave it in your hands, Mr. Chair and colleagues, about how we can maybe move forward in that but without affecting negatively our work and the time we have aside for us. Again, I think one very concrete contribution coming from this group would be to give clarity on this which is -- as we read pieces of paper statements, it is confusing. And sometimes we clearly see that people are talking about different things. We see at the OECD, those have building blocks that are not necessarily in opposition if we deal differently with different kinds of situations. This is not contradictory if we are supporting fully multistakeholder approach, even without any kind of governmental participation. On the other hand, we discuss issues we want some more -- it is required some more, let's say, governmental policy-making authorities. So the mapping exercise is completely relevant. What I would like to ask -- this is the kind of approach to take -- to have an open mind in regard to what we have on the table. We would not -- we do not want to be impeded to proceed in some direction by our own perspective. But we want to take fully into account other stakeholders' perspectives because, for example, the point of view from government for some particular set of issues is very important. And maybe when we focus on this, then we have a discourse that entails some concern. But we also want to acknowledge that for other parties, other aspects are important. So I think as we look to the whole picture, it is important to make clear that we are -- we have to differentiate and we have to work around this idea of categories of mapping. And, again, I do not have an understanding how it would be more efficient for us to work around this. But I think it's a prerequisite for us for our work. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ambassador. So I can hear a relatively clear support for the mapping as a prerequisite for work. And at the same time, I'm happy that you share my concerns about the proceeding of our work. So that's why I suggested that eventually we can have a task for -- whatever you may call it, a subgroup, which could come up with the beginning of this exercise to give us some food for thought. And I wonder if apart from the persons who suggested to have the -- this exercise, who would be interested to work during lunchtime, during coffee breaks, during the evenings but outside the meeting and come back, say, in some point of time, to provide us with further inputs? First Marilyn and then (saying name). >>MARILYN CADE: Chair, let me ask a question. It seems to me that a first starting point would be a simple Excel spreadsheet which has on the left-hand side the name of the submitter and across the top -- sorry, I'm trying to organize this in my mind as I'm looking at it. So the name of the submitter and then the issues that they submitted under question 4, I would say question 15 as well, but question 4. That sounds to me like it is a cut and paste -- the first step is a cut and paste so that then we can start looking at it. Is that -- and trying to boil the longer list into more generalized categories. And then taking into account -- I think the next step, taking into account the idea then of how you look at the discussion in the room coming from: So do we think this particular topic is falling into one of the four or three groupings that Parminder and I had been discussing? But the first step sounds to me like, I would hope, a secretariat function of cut and paste to try and to get the submissions into a document. Is your suggestion that we need to find participants to do that first? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Marilyn, I have been told by the secretariat that the path of the exercise has already been done. It's on the Web site, if I'm not mistaken. But can I ask you to make some clarification to that? >> On the Web site, we have two kinds of PDF documents. One set of PDF documents are the individual submissions. Another set of PDF documents are compilation by question. So you can download all the responses to question 4, for instance, 15 or 2 or 5, whatever. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Is it an answer to your question or to the proposal or you want to go beyond? >>MARILYN CADE: Chair, I'm very familiar with it. I'm carrying it around with me. I sleep with it under my pillow. >> CHAIR MAJOR: No doubt about it. [ Laughter ] >> MARILYN CADE: I was thinking about transcribing it on to the pillow case. But it's going to be difficult to work with it in this particular form unless people have a paper copy in front of them. If you haven't seen it, you know basically we would be flipping back page by page. So that was my question about -- but is the secretariat's suggestion that we volunteer task force members could spend our lunchtime filling in Excel spreadsheet? Which is possible, of course. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Just a slight correction, it is not the secretariat, it is mine. [ Laughter ] So let me be clear about it. I made the suggestion, and I'm happy that you accepted it. And I would like to see more and more volunteers to sacrifice their lunchtime, which is very much approaching. Before we break, I think India has asked for the floor. And then I propose to break for lunch and ask you as well to find a way to get together and to start this exercise which has been proposed. Basically, I think that we are talking about the mapping exercise, talking about some kind of spreadsheet approach, if I'm not mistaken, which will take the issues and the proposals. Marilyn, can you be clearer on that? What is your proposal exactly? >>MARILYN CADE: Well, I don't think it's just my issue. I think if there's interest in doing a mapping exercise, we should hear from others who are interested in it. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. Brazil? >>BRAZIL: I'm sorry, but it's more a point of clarification because when we are proposing these mapping exercises, we are looking to something that is not exactly to map what the different responses were and to identify the issues but to link this, the issues to the current arrangement and mechanism. So this is something that in our view should maybe be done -- I could not volunteer. I do not have expertise to link some issue to some current arrangement. But I think this is something that would assist us in moving forward. This was the understanding I had of the mapping, is that it is required for us to move forward. And I think this is something that will not emerge only from compilation which has already been done by the secretariat, by the way. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I understand your concerns, and I share them. I'm sure that not all of us have the expertise here to be part of this group. I think it can be only regarded as a start for this exercise. And probably it will be helpful maybe for all meetings right now. I think it will be useful for the future meetings, if I'm not mistaken. India, you wanted to take the floor? >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I'm glad this clarification has already been given. I think mapping exercises not with the proposers of those proposals but rather with the issues, public policy issues versus the mechanisms, existing. So that would lead us to the next questions. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. So it seems to me that we are on -- yes, Virat, I suggest you are the last and we break for lunch. >> VIRAT BHATIA: We have two sort of options here. One is the WGIG document that was mentioned, which has under Section III "identifying public policy issues that are relevant to Internet governance and addressing the advocacy of existing governance arrangements mentioning A, B, C, D," four issues. And then we have the Brazilian government's list which is about five issues mentioned, but they are not necessarily corresponding to each other. So I suppose if the mapping exercise has to happen, then we'll have to mention those under the WGIG documents classified, those 48 or 45 issues and then start linking them to mechanisms as well as the roles of the various stakeholders. I think that would be two exercises. And if it's -- I think that will lead us to deciding what the mechanisms should be. And whether an existing mechanism has a home or we need to find a new home. I think these two documents will have to be merged for us to get -- because the submissions to question 4 has five different inputs ranging from 13 to 49, issues identified by various stakeholders. The set we are going with in terms of WGIG is four. So we can possibly pick the biggest set -- let's say the Brazilian set, for example -- and try to match it there and work from there. We are happy to provide and Excel sheet without promising no mistakes. [ Laughter ] And then the team can change it around in case some have to shift and link it to a mechanism, if that is helpful. I'm just offering that help. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, thank you for the support of this proposal. I think the secretariat can give you further support in that. So probably if you request them to be part of the exercise, they will be happy to help you. As for the time frame for the exercise, I'm not really sure that we can come back after lunch, but I hope we can, and we can continue all discussions still on group 2, taking into account your input or your results. And I think that would be quite helpful. Having said that, I think we can break now. I want to see you back by 3:00. And I encourage you to spend your lunchtime the most efficient way you think. [ Lunch break ] [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Can I ask you to take your seats, please. Thank you. Welcome back. I hope you had a very good lunch, good discussions. I want to start with an announcement. India had made an update to the contributions. And you have the update in paper form on the table, I think, at the entrance of the room. So feel free to pick up your copy. It is my understanding that the voluntary task group undertaking a kind of mapping exercise has made significant progress. We are talking about the grouping of -- we have the Questions Number 4, 8 and 9. It is my understanding that the mapping exercise has been started and taken into account the contributions to reply to Question Number 4. So we are going to discuss this afternoon the questions in Group 4. I would like to ask any representative of this voluntary task group if they feel like reporting on the results. We are very keen to know where we are. Yes, Marilyn, please. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. I'll open my comments by saying that the voluntary task group is going to be seeking further collaboration and participation, so if you didn't -- if you didn't spend your lunch hour with us, don't think you're off the hook. But let me give you a quick update. What we did -- and two members of the voluntary group are still trying to finalize a working document. Virat Bhatia has also engaged some of his team to also help. What we're doing is taking -- sort of envision Column 1 as being a consolidated list of all of the bulleted items that were submitted on Question 4 from any submitter, starting with the Brazilian list and then consolidating all of the bullets. So if a submitter wrote a paragraph we've not been able to figure out, those will not have been reworded. But the first column will be all of the bullets. There will be a lot of duplication or phrases which may mean roughly the same thing but they're worded differently. The second column we're proposing -- this will, of course, be up to the participants to decide, but we're proposing then to try to come to a grouping that is more consolidated. So envision Column 1 as possibly having well over a hundred bullets in it with duplication in it. Maybe 80 but it will be a long list of bullets. And then the second column would be consolidated headings where we would try to come up with categories that everybody felt comfortable with that that long list of bullets could be consolidated into. The third column we are proposing drawing from the submissions would be the list of activities. We are using a very general heading, the list of activities that are underway. So if someone submitted an example that the ITU is doing work on child online protection or the ITU submitted that, that would be go in there. MOG (phonetic) was mentioned by another group, so that would go in that. And then we'll have two blank columns. The fourth column would probably, in order to make this a useful tool, need to be sort of a general assessment of satisfaction with progress on enhanced cooperation. And I'm really using that as a very general term, taking Parminder's suggestion of three categories, and mine of four. And then there is a column that just says "comments." So by tomorrow morning, we would expect to have -- and actually have it to send to everyone by later today this Excel spreadsheet. And then we would want to try to figure out what the consolidated headings are for Column 2. So this would be a mapping exercise for one question but a question that, I think, everyone has agreed is a very significant question and where there was a significant amount of input. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. And thank you for all who have participated in this work and who are going to participate. And I really encourage all of you to participate and to contribute. I think the result of this exercise may be a very valuable document. I think as well that due to the complexity of the issue, probably many of us would think that we have to take the document back home and consult with relevant partners. So having said that, I'm looking forward to have this document eventually by tomorrow. And I'm sure the secretariat will give all the help which is needed to finalize in a way that we can use it for our future discussions. So we are back to Group Number 2, Questions 4, 8 and 9. And before lunch break, we discussed many issues. I'm turning to you if you have any other comments or observation on these questions. My intention, that eventually we will go through in a relatively quick way all the groups and all the questions and we shall revisit them naturally in more depth. And probably we will take two groups of questions in the coming days with a view of eventually arriving to some kind of draft recommendation. So any comment on Question Numbers 4, 8 and 9? Well, I can see no one asking for the floor. Yes, Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Sorry, Chair. I actually think for myself I got very diverted on to Question 4, and I don't feel like we have talked through 8 and 9. And I would ask other colleagues. But I think there's a merit to talking about 8 and 9 as a pair right now. Or if people don't feel prepared to talk about it, then I would like to park it and come back to it because they are two questions that I otherwise sort of feel like we're stranding. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I fully agree with you. That's why I asked the group to comment on that. I can see the United States asking for the floor. Please. >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Chairman. Perhaps not to comment on that particular point but to take your earlier point, I guess, when you were just asking generally for comments related to various questions. So in the arena of Question 4, I would just make a note that for my administration, from the United States, we see no hard distinction between public policy issues and technical issues in terms of broadly governance. Both, whether we are in a technical arena or in a public policy arena, for us we think that it's important to take in the views of all stakeholders, not just simply government, not just simply the private sector. And that's the way we can best progress. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, U.S., for this comment. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: If as Marilyn says that 8 and 9 has to be treated together and 8 is about mechanisms and 9 about the role of IGF and also taking from the United States' intervention that if -- I mean, I have been trying to insist since morning that categories of technical and public policy be separated because the nature of stakeholder roles are different. And, now, if -- now, we have to then connect to the point where they are different or non-different. I think that point, even between the mechanisms and the IGF, is the decision-making procedures which the Chair has very appropriately put as a subheading in the summary itself. I think the core issue is this. People do agree that, yes, whether it is technical or public policy, everybody's views have to be taken. They could be heavily layered and intensive processes of view taking and reporting back why the views were considered and not, et cetera. And all of this are fine. And I think the real point is the decision-making procedure regarding different kinds of issues. And that's where the difference lies. In technical policies, the decision-making could still be shared in some manners. But there is some kind of public policy issues, e-commerce and consumer rights and taxation, a whole host of them here. In international jurisdictions, we are also very clear that the decision-making is done in a particular manner. So I think if we discuss the decision-making procedures part of your summary, then we would be going to the meat of this particular question. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I just want to have a quick clarification from Marilyn. I think she made a point about Question 4 being closely looked at with Question 10. Is that assumption correct? >>MARILYN CADE: Sorry. I think it's Question 15. It is the one that identifies public policy issues of most importance to the developing countries. 15, isn't it? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Any other comment? Yes, Virat. >> VIRAT BHATIA: I think the point that's been brought up by Parminder is an important one. And I think there are two views emerging which we need to sort of take cognizance of and then work away to try to close the gap as much as possible, which is are there areas where the decision-making has to be such that the other stakeholders have a lesser or a different role? And I think we have not reached that conclusion based on the submissions yet. So I think that should be open to an evolving dialogue during this discussion. And I don't want to go into the specifics that have been mentioned, but I think business believes that -- and I speak for my colleagues. I think we -- we believe that stakeholders need to be on that table on an equal footing to make those decisions as much as they have to be on an equal footing in the policy dialogue that occurs in places such as the IGF. Part of this is because if not all, vast majority of the infrastructure that currently provides access to nearly 7 billion mobile subscriptions in the world, citizens who are online, which is 40% of the world and 40% of the households across the world, that infrastructure is provided by the private sector. So even if access was an issue -- and we can go on to any number of issues there -- I think any policy that will impact the investment possibilities across the world and given the fact that there is free flow of investment now across the world, just citing one of the many, would require stakeholders to be in this decision-making process at an equal footing and more importantly have a mechanism which allows for everybody to be on an equal footing, not just to be consulted but, in fact, the views should be considered and discussed. And if there is a result that we reach after the discussion, it could well be that one of the stakeholders was wrong and the other stakeholder was right. That decision can only be made if the mechanism and the platform provides for all the stakeholders to be on an equal footing. If the status of the stakeholders is decided before the discussion occurs, then the decision-making will shift to a certain different stakeholder. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for these remarks. Definitely no one really thinks right now that we are at the state of conclusions. We are just starting our discussions. And we are here to express the different approaches we have and we try to find some common understanding, which approach is advantageous to one issue and which approach is advantageous to another one. So probably at the end of the day, we may have a better understanding. I don't think we are going to arrive to some conclusion -- well, at least not today. I hope we are going to arrive to some conclusion on Friday evening. If not, I think we will have other meetings. We know the issues are complex. We know that. And the issues are new. Even though the decision which was taken during the WSIS dates about almost nine years now. But still the evolution of the Internet itself and all the issues which we are facing every day are new. So I think we are in a learning curve, and we have to take this also into account. So any other comments on Question 4, 8 and 9? There was a request or a call from Marilyn that eventually we'd like to discuss 8 and 9 which haven't been touched upon. Yes, India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to reflect on some of the comments which have been made just now by colleagues in the room. I think -- I think to be drawn into the initial comments you made at the beginning of this meeting, I think they're very critical and important. The mandate of the group here is very well-specified through the General Assembly resolution. I think we need to be extremely mindful, which you have reminded us quite very early in the discussion, that the challenge that we face is -- there are obviously evolving subjects, evolving issues. And having said that, I think it would be important to bear in mind that we are not here to rewrite the Tunis Agenda. We are not here to redefine the roles with respect to stakeholders. I think if you go down that path, we may have difficulties in arriving at conclusions or the way decisions are to be made. I think these are larger issues that we should leave for some other mandated body to look at it. At this point in time, the route we embarked upon which is to define those issues which we decide as public policy issues and technical issues and then going down the path of looking at what mechanisms that are existing and if we need to further strengthen them. I think perhaps that could be the right way to do, in our opinion. So I think it's important that we continuously be reminding ourselves of the importance of this particular dimension of our work. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for this remark. And you maybe show that I will do my best to stick to the mandate we have. However, we should also take into consideration that we are part of a process and this process is the WSIS +10 process. We should provide some input to the final evaluation of the WSIS +10. And we cannot exclude some elements which may be beneficial for the revision of this process, for the review of the process. Before I give the floor to Avri, Carlos asked for the floor. Carlos. >>CARLOS AFONSO: Yes. I would just like to compliment what you just said, Peter. I think that the document from LACNIC, the response from the questionnaire, it says an interesting thing that the Tunis Agenda, the results of Tunis, we don't have to take as a Bible in every paragraph, sentence, or word because there is a dynamic. There is a process in which the Internet is evolving. The technologies are evolving. The relationships between states and other stakeholders are evolving as well. And this is the reason why we are here, exactly too precise or to attempt to focus more on these issues of cooperation amongst stakeholders. So let's not be fixed on the idea of "in their respective roles," and let's be much more open about it. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Carlos. Avri, remote participant, and then I see Phil and I see Sweden as well. >>AVRI DORIA: Good day to you all. Sorry I couldn't be here. Saying good day from lovely Vancouver where the IETF meeting is being held this week. I wanted to come in behind what Carlos has said and comment on the role of stakeholders and the notion that that is something that is somewhat sacrosanct and cannot be modified. I rather say that it is something that must be modified. It was a government proscription for the roles of all stakeholders, the roles and responsibilities. It does not reflect accurately all the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders in the Internet governance environment. And unless we can adjust that to reflect reality, to reflect real capabilities, we are condemning ourselves to sort of wander around in circles where some people assert that roles and responsibilities that others have and must take cannot be the case. So I really do beg us to take the redefinition of those in a multistakeholder model as opposed to trying to constrain the discussions in such a way that only one stakeholder defines the roles and responsibilities of another. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. Very interesting remarks. And we are aware of the enormous task ahead of us. And we should also understand the delicacy of the issues. So probably we have to be very cautious in using words such as "must." We shall, of course, consider things. But I would caution you to follow a kind of process which is very cautious. Phil and then Sweden. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. And good afternoon. I listen with interest to this discussion and my mind goes back to the very interesting and varied interpretations that have been put into the responses that we have received as part of the process. And I think the points that have been made by yourself and others are ones that we should take into account. WSIS was nine years ago, and the world has moved on since then. To some it has perhaps not moved as much and as fast or, indeed, covered a number of the points that would have been liked. But the journey, as many refer to enhanced cooperation within the responses, has started. And I think it's important certainly bearing in mind the point made by Virat and by others that it is -- it is a start. And stakeholders, as part of the debate, now need to be included as a general inclusion in discussions and decisions going forward. I don't think we should try and lose sight of that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. First of all, I agree what was said by India. We are not here to rewrite the Tunis Agenda. That's not within our mandate obviously. However, what I think we all have to do, given that the Tunis Agenda is, say, a high-level document -- high-level principles are enclosed in the Tunis Agenda -- is that we have to interpret the Tunis Agenda. And that's, I think, something that we all do here. So there is a clear distinction there, I think. Just also to comment on the issue that was discussed before about separating technical issues from public policy issues, I think we are also of the view that we do not see a clear benefit of making such a distinction given that we think that it's very important to deal with public policy issues also in a multistakeholder environment. So we are not sure that that would add any benefit to the work here to do such a clear distinction, separation. If I also may very briefly comment on Question 8 and 9, since you asked for that, although we can come back with more details later. But for us, enhanced cooperation is a process. And I think that's -- that's very important to keep in mind. And, therefore, it's not something that is implemented through one mechanism or in one specific fora but a process that is taking place in many different foras. And we definitely see IGF as one of those foras where enhanced cooperation is taking place, not the only one, though, but one of them. So that's how we -- that's our take on Question 8 and 9, I think. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Again, the remote participant, Joy Liddicoat. Joy, you have the floor. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Peter. I wanted to just make a couple of comments with respect to comments made so far. This is in relation to Question 8 and coming from mechanisms. (Background noise). (indiscernible). I think that's critical to underscore. I think there has been a (indiscernible) of mechanisms on which enhanced cooperation has been quite constant. Tunis Agenda was agreed and that includes both new and existing mechanisms. For example, there are some mechanisms considering (indiscernible) issues including the United Nations (indiscernible) which have not previously been considered before in some respects which cover an actual cooperation's mechanism of stakeholders. And that I think with regard to whatever form the mechanism takes, it's going to be more successful in enhanced cooperation that people participating can do so with confidence. And I think that, therefore, (indiscernible) to which people have a stake with an existing governmental system, there are many opportunities for governments who participate, some obviously more than others. And the challenge, I think, is to give developing countries more voice but also to just civil society and other stakeholders with some existing mechanisms. (indiscernible). I would agree that this decision of public policy and technical issues (indiscernible) because if we are going to define substance from the former works we discussed, then I think we are at risk for (indiscernible) public policy. And I would remind (indiscernible) members to think about (indiscernible) enhanced cooperation. Cooperation is a positive tool. It's a tool that is designed to catch (background noise) (indiscernible) that some participants are working on over the months. But it would be an useful one for us to go back to and consider this afternoon. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. You sounded a bit distant from us. She's talking from New Zealand. We are -- I think all of us are aware of the importance of the process we are in. And enhanced cooperation means something very positive to all of us, I believe, well to me at least. And I would like to encourage you to take this positive approach as well. So having said that, anyone on Question 4, 8, 9? Especially 8 and 9. Yes, an observer. >>MATTHEW SHEARS: Thank you, Chair. Matthew Shears with CDT. I think just a couple comments on what's been said so far. There is an incredibly diverse -- great diversity of views on enhanced cooperation, and that is reflected very well in the summary. But I would like to take a couple of particular points, especially when it comes to mechanisms. People have mentioned how the world has changed, how the Internet has changed since the WSIS. And I'd like to say that when we contemplate moving forward in this particular working group and we talk about multilateral models that have other stakeholders in some consultative role, this doesn't seem to me to be a step forward in any interpretation of the word "cooperation." I think to come back to the things that were said earlier on today, it is important that we be open to the views of all of the parties. It is important that we reflect on how the Internet space has evolved and how there has been cooperation and enhanced cooperation and that we take that view forward. And I would like to say that for all those who have suggested that we need to look at the issues, this is exactly the way to go forward. Let's look at those issues. Let's understand how they are being addressed. Let's then understand in what ways they are being addressed and how those ways can be improved upon, and let's take that as the basis of our discussions. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Well, it seems to me that for the time being, there are no more contributions concerning the Group 2; that is 4, 8 and 9. We have the promise of the voluntary task group to come up with a document tomorrow morning so probably we shall discuss this issue tomorrow as well. Now, I suggest that eventually we move to the next group. This is Group 3. I will let you look into the questions pertaining to Group 3. Probably five minutes would be enough to refresh our memories and then we shall start the discussions after the coffee break which I think will be around 20 past 4:00. So please have a look at the questions under Group 3. [ Reviewing document. ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, it seems to me that five minutes goes really fast and you seem to be very much absorbed in your exercise, which I'm very happy about, but I believe we have to get to the point now. So it's Group 3, and I would like to hear some comments from you. So far, if I'm not mistaken, we are talking about Questions 5, 6, 7, 17 -- 14, and 17, which is quite substantial. And they're all of the stakeholders we have already touched upon, but our (indiscernible) this is the nature of the thing, but we come back to the same issues from a different angle. But right now we have to concentrate on this particular issue, which is the role of the stakeholders. So who would like to contribute, and I would like to have -- of course, with all my respect to you, Brazil, I'm all ears for the comments. I will give you the floor shortly, but let me ask those ones who seem to have some kind of jet lag or some kind of fatigue because of the -- we're at the end of the year and we have many meetings, I understand. But I would like to encourage you, those of you who haven't done it yet, to contribute to the meeting, to collect more views and to make this meeting really fruitful. Brazil, please. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I also joined a group of people that are jet-lagged. But anyway, maybe I can just make a few comments. First of all, in the light of the discussions we had before, if we agreed that we want to examine the issue of enhanced cooperation through the angle of differentiation among issues, then Question Number 5 should also take this into account when we ask, "What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced cooperation," so various aspects relates to different kinds of circumstance that should be dealt with differently. So, in a way it is linked to the discussion we had before, and in a way to have meaningful discussion with this we would need the work that is being -- that they can -- I understand by Marilyn Cade and others, that can provide us with some more tools for that regard. However, I would also -- from the point of view of governments, I would recall that in another section in the context of the Council Working Group, the U.K. has come up with a proposal that is very interesting from the point of the view of the role of governments in Internet Governance as a whole that provides very useful elements for examining this issue from the perspective of governments. And the way it indicates areas in which governments can -- and certainly from the perspective of public policy -- can provide very specific contribution for the environment, the legal environment, legal framework, regulatory framework, and also as a catalyst for the multistakeholder ambiance as a whole. So I think even if it is not in the context of how it will work, it will be useful to relate to this document. Question Number 6, of course, is -- in our view is also very clearly -- 6 and 7 to the discussion also we had before in the sense that the -- also if we identify -- oh, I'm sorry. Yes, because then we are maybe focusing on mechanisms, and I think this is something that might be useful to use in conjunction with Question Number 8. All of these questions relate to each other. It's not easy to -- it's not so clear how to tackle them separately. In regard to Question Number 7, I would also again refer you to this U.K. paper, refer that enhanced cooperation, from the point of view of governments, from the point of view of the enabling environment, it certainly will also be a tool for participation of multistakeholders and in itself with assist them also to carry out their roles and responsibilities. One comment in regard to Question Number 14 is that I think this is, of course, a very useful issue to be examined and I understand for a few participants a very important issue and for my own delegation a very important issue, the local language contents. However, in this case, I -- my feelings are that maybe it should not be the main focus of our work. I think we should -- I think this is one of the issues that should be dealt with in the context of enhanced cooperation. That's -- the focus of our work should be the structure and the kind of framework we want, more than the issues themselves. So my feeling is that although very important aspects, that should not maybe be the focus of our work here. And finally with regards to 17, yeah, again I would just refer to the reply we gave on the policy development institutional multistakeholder framework, and I want to make reference to the model we had in Brazil in the steering committee which is one of the possibilities in which that would be translated to a concrete achievement. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. Sweden, please. >>SWEDEN: Thank you. Just a couple of comments. I think one thing that is important to keep in mind when we are discussing about the roles of different stakeholders is that we are dealing with a very rapidly changing environment. So rules of stakeholders might also change over time. Also, we think that it's quite important to not have too much of a top-down approach on this. Roles of stakeholders will be defined by stakeholders to a large extent. And not by -- by people outside of, let's say, the Internet Governance Eco-System. Just to also comment briefly on how we see the role of the government, we definitely think that upholding the rule of law online in the same manner as we do offline is one of the main roles of the government as well as them upholding human rights online in the same manner that we uphold human rights offline, as well as facilitating multistakeholder dialogue on these issues. I think a lot of that has also been captured in the U.K. proposal that was mentioned by Brazil, and we very much appreciate that contribution and looking forward to sort of a dialogue on that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. So anyone -- yes, Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. I would just like to build on a reference that Brazil made about the submission of the U.K. into the international public policy working group because I think it is an excellent resource. It is only available to governments or to parties that are on government delegations, so it might be possible maybe to contact the U.K. and ask them if they would provide an information document which could be shared. I will note -- I'm sorry, I don't know -- the pages aren't numbered on the submission, but the U.K., the summary for the U.K. submission on Question 5 has a very high level reference that identifies some of those topics, and I would call that to everyone's attention because I think it is a useful discussion about the -- first of all, it recognizes the mutual recognition of the respective roles, but it does go on to identify some of the activities that were mentioned in the -- in the U.K. submission to the ITU working group. I wanted to make a couple of comments about, I wonder if perhaps on Question 14 -- and I think there may be a couple of other questions like that which are specific to particular areas that need to be -- need to evolve very rapidly in order to ensure that all citizens of the world can use the Internet and the World Wide Web. Maybe we might take those questions and put them in a category to come back to and -- because it may be that we will not, in this working group, be able to be very specific but we might be able to summarize that the interest of those who responded to the questionnaire showed strong support for continued work being done on these particular issues. And this one is the development of local language content. I wouldn't want to lose the submissions, but I -- I agree with Brazil that it may be too granular an area for us to spend a lot of time on. And we didn't ask questions about every other issue. And then finally, I think Question 7, I guess I'm really quite surprised that there's not a lot of flags up to talk about Question 7. So I will say that I think it is a question that we need to talk about a lot more. And if we don't talk about it now, then maybe we could talk about it tomorrow whenever we get the Question 4 documents and come back and talk about this question in more detail. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. Before I give the floor to Parminder, I turn to the U.K. and ask, for she has already the answer, and my question is, there was reference to the ITU working group public policy issues and the contributions came from the U.K. Do you think there's a possibility of making this available to the group here? Thank you. >>UNITED KINGDOM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank everyone here for such positive feedback on that paper which was put together in a multistakeholder group in the U.K. I'm sure it would be perfectly fine for us to share it with the group here. I'm just double-checking with London, but I can't foresee any problem. I'll get a copy sent to the Secretariat so they can make sure that everybody has access to it. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Sorry, Mr. Chair. Not -- just not to lose not only that, I made the reference also because Mr. Ed Vaizey made a presentation on this at the IGF meeting so that might also be a source, the speech he delivered captured the main points. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. So probably if Mr. Vaizey's speech is available, it would be also useful -- his speech during the IGF, it would be useful. But I think there's a transcript, so -- which is available on the web, on the IGF website, which can be consulted as well. And it's open. Okay. So having said that, Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. One of my points was undisputed by Ambassador (saying name). I do not have access to the U.K. document submitted to the ITU, but I remember sitting through the first session in the IGF and the minister detailed four levels of governmental role as they saw in Internet Governance and I nearly agreed with the whole framework there. And having heard that framework and agreeing to that, I'm a little unclear about certain conclusions of the discussion and I think this particular discussion is important also to figure out what mechanisms are necessary. Because after my early intervention which said that the main point here is the participation and decision-making, the rest -- everything is fine, number of consultations, back and forth, you know, drafts, et cetera. But decision-making is in terms of public policymaking in democracies and after my intervention I had a lot of people saying no, they really want other stakeholders to have an equal role in decision-making in public policy processes. Now that really kind of freezes my mind about what are we talking about here. Because public policy and the role of (indiscernible) in public policy is not an issue of Internet Governance. It's an issue of global democracy and it's an issue of national democracies, and the proposition that corporations and even citizen society groups would fit and we equally participate, have equal role in public policymaking, it's something completely beyond my democratic understanding. And I think there's something which I'm missing here because I don't think that could be what people are saying because it's purely post-democratic narrative for people to say that no -- yes, we're talking public policies and we are talking that non-governmental stakeholders will have an equal role in decision-making. So I think whoever make that proposal, I would like to hear more about what really they mean. Because at one point we were ready to separate the technical part of it, the standard setting, logical infrastructure that's different, people can have an equal role, so can we separate, call public policymaking. And people say no, we still need equal role in decision-making in public policymaking. That's beyond my understanding. For me that's the Holy Grail of democracy is what I already said. And if that point is resolved, then my mind could get out of this stalemate of what really is the difference of view between different people here. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder, for that thought-provoking contribution and probably those who propose the multistakeholder approach can give you examples how it is working in practice. I can see a lot of flags. Saudi Arabia are welcome to. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to everyone. In regards to the list of three of the questions, about the roles and responsibilities of all of the stakeholders, my intervention was much covered by from Parminder in regards to the decision-making process. And this is what I would like to hear more about because when I heard the discussion, it seems that like if the roles of the government has been actually implemented since 2005 and now we are examining the role of the governments in regards to the Internet Governance, but in the reality the role of the governments in regards to the Internet Governance has not been implemented. I know that there's been an advisory group, but it does not reach to have a decision-making -- I mean, a decision-making mechanism in regards to Internet matters. What we're talking about here is the international public policy that is -- relates to the sovereignty of the states and relates to the cooperation between states to another state. I was in Korea and the cyberspace conference just recently, and I see some faces who attended that conference. I mean, there was a big number of foreign ministers and most of them talked about that we need cooperation in regards to issues that has to be decided by governments. We cannot have a good faith in regards to the whole private sector and the technical community in regards to aspects. We have to have a decision made by governments in regards to the child, for example, pornography, child online protection. If there was no decision made by states in this regards, we cannot prevent or have something in that matter. For example, there was a big discussion about the privacy, the recent talks about the privacy and that privacy and freedom does not conflict each other. But there has to be a very high guidelines. I heard, too, the Swedish foreign minister, he declared seven principles, global principles to be adopted in regards to the surveillance. That's the things that we -- we -- I'm talking about being a government, that needs to be very high level in terms of international public policy. We're not intervening in the day-to-day operational -- I mean, operation, because we don't want to drift from the role of the governments. Governments does not have interest to go very low in technicality and how things functioning and the standards and all these things. We need to set principles that we negotiate, we have a mechanism that governments can negotiate to each other, governments can solve problems based on agreed international public policies. I will stop at this, but in regards to the roles of the -- of the stakeholders, we still believe that -- I mean, Tunis Agenda, even if it's been nine years, still, I mean, the roles is very reasonable in regards to, for example, paragraph 35. Wherever there's matters relates to the sovereignty of the states, it's the right of the states to tackle these matters. When we talk about the technical policies, that is the international organizations, the technicality and so on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. I would like to ask you, all of us, in fact, that once again, the way I started that we have a mandate and probably we should stick to the mandate and the mandate was established by the United Nations General Assembly. So I really recommend you to discuss the issues we have agreed upon in the first meeting, to concentrate on the questions we agreed on in the first meeting and to follow up on. I can see Sweden, India, and -- I can see Japan. And finally I have Joy, remote participation, and Jimson. After Jimson we shall break for -- we shall break. And I promise, Brazil, you will be the first speaker after the coffee break. So Sweden, India, Japan, Joy, Jimson. >>SWEDEN: Thank you. Well, just to say that to us enhanced cooperation is not only about decision-making, but about cooperation in a broader sense and about dialogue. But even if you're talking about development of policy, I think it's important to do that in an open, transparent multistakeholder model. If we're talking about decisions, legislation, for instance, obviously at the national level, that's what parliaments do. But when we're talking about enhanced cooperation, for us it's much broader than the decision-making part. Sometimes, obviously, states come to that as well. We have to make certain decisions, adopt certain treaties, adopt recommendations, so on. But when we're looking at enhanced cooperation, we see that in a much broader sense about cooperation, about dialogue, about policy dialogue, and Policy Development, because Policy Development is also much broader than just decision-making. So that's where we're coming from. Thank you. >> (indiscernible) >>CHAIR MAJOR: India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. We'd like to make two quick comments. First, I think some pertinent questions have been raised about the definition of multistakeholder approach. I think at some stage during our deliberations we clarify this. I think there are issues relating to -- dimensions have been brought up. One, as I said, at the policy-making level, consultation level to leading (indiscernible) and other sort of relative roles of the various stakeholders in the decision-making process. I think if you are planning to write this particular phrase, I think it's not a bad idea that we eventually lead up to defining what it means in this working group. That's one solution. Secondly, coming to the specific group of questions that you have reflected, I think we have very -- very clearly said that enhanced cooperation is also a dynamic process. It is a dynamic process because the Internet -- the way it is evolving is dynamic. So we cannot have static solutions. The solutions also have to be dynamic. But this does not take away the responsibility of this group today to decide to sort of postpone decisions, to postpone that talk, we will not do it today but we will do it later. Because it's so dynamic we can't really perhaps sort of put our finger on a particular process or a particular mechanism. I think this is important. Bearing that in mind, we have in our replies also defined a large number of areas, largely drawing upon the previous working group which just touched on this. What are the specific roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders. When we refer to Tunis paragraph number 55, I don't think we're trying to create a kind of silo. No, the idea is not to create a silo. The idea is to broadly define what is the relative roles and responsibilities. But this, I think, has been moved on. I think this is a question in which we have in our reply tried to elaborate a number of pages where there are relative responsibilities of various stakeholders. I think if you -- we could act on this list, and I'm sure there are ways to do it because as I said, we are -- we are encountering a new -- new developments in the use of Internet. Going to Question 6 and 7, I think these are closely interlinked as some colleagues have pointed out a little while ago, I think to be very frank, I think governments are also trying to discover what is their role in the Internet. Today the challenge is that. It's not the other way around, that we are trying to define the role of other stakeholders. But I think governments also are very mindful, very cautious, about what are the mechanisms that we look at evolving. Does not in any way sort of lessen or make the dynamic nature of Internet to stifle. It should become a platform for innovation, platform for greater social economic development, because the tools that we are employing back home using this medium -- I mean, I'm sure we all do in our own country, but in India we are very proud of what we're doing. I don't think governments are interested in any way trying to stifle this process. I think that's to be very clear, and we are very committed to that particular process. And this -- while saying that in the relative roles and responsibilities, when you talk of governments, since there is a question about how do we deal with this, since there would be some areas where there is a public policy space that the governments ought to make decisions because they answer to their own people. The medium is Internet here. We agree to that. But there are two -- but the way the convergence of technologies are taking place today, that everything -- any transaction that an individual in society will do will eventually touch upon the Internet space. So there is definitely a responsibility for the governments, both in the national space as well as in the international or the multi -- some colleagues may not like the word "multi-lateral" but in the larger international space, I think it is precisely there that we are coming in. It would only enhance the processes. As I said, it is not with the intention to stifle them. That being clearly said, it is -- on the reply to Question 7, we are looking at further enhancing the role of the stakeholders, other stakeholders, because the big question here 6 and 7, we're touching on governments in one question and other stakeholders. Again, it is not -- I don't think we should vote on the part of saying that there's a prioritization here. No, I don't think that is (indiscernible), but the way it is structured I think the replies are also provided in that manner. We're open to this idea as to how we need to define -- if it is -- if it is a proposition in the room that how do we define the roles of other stakeholders without -- again, the issue is not to undermine the existing roles. It is to see how further it can be enhanced and see that everything can go together. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. It's very thought-provoking and, thank you for the remarks. Japan. >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In addition to the role and responsibilities of various stakeholders, I think it is very important to consider the cooperation among the various stakeholder to facilitate enhanced cooperation and to address the international public policy issues related to the Internet, how to incorporate each of it effectively. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Japan. I have Joy. Joy Liddicoat. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of points to touch on (indiscernible) this discussion about roles and (indiscernible) I know we're focusing on the role of governments but I think it's very (indiscernible) that enhanced cooperation can't be tweaked to (indiscernible) stakeholder design. (indiscernible) I do think it's important we define (indiscernible). Civil society participation is (indiscernible) to be strengthening. And I do think it is important that (indiscernible) part of the Tunis Agenda in relation to the roles of civil society and government is inadequate in linking civil society's role with (indiscernible) and not working well with government. For example, civil society does have a key role (indiscernible). And it is particularly important in terms of the (indiscernible) to governments, specifically analyzing and supporting governments is positively challenging in purporting government action. So I think in that respect, it is important to recognize that it is government's responsibility as well as role. And this is something we have touched on before in our working group discussions. We have responsibility, for example, (indiscernible). I think that is something that can be (indiscernible) debate that can be. I would just like to support the comments from governments of India and Sweden in relation to the (indiscernible) in relation to the government relationships with each other and equalizing those relationships. (indiscernible) submissions from examples (indiscernible) is a third round in relation to (indiscernible). I would just -- support of some of the other participants to think it is helpful of the roles of governments (indiscernible). Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. Unfortunately, we had some sound problems. Your message came through, however. In case you think you can just write down in short summary, what you said, it would be very useful for the record and for further considerations. There were a lot of points which did not come through. The last speaker before the coffee break, Jimson. >> JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you very much, Distinguished Chair. I would like to first thank my brother Parminder for his sincere desire to know why -- (indiscernible), for example, wants to be involved into decision-making. And also want to thank the distinguished representative of India for his own position and Sweden for the response. Well, I'm coming from the private sector in Nigeria. And I witnessed the dynamics of Internet development in our country way back in 2000. By that time, there was serious problems. And the government listened to the cry of the private sector. We need to work together. And so a policy was developed together with the government. And we all agreed, we start together, agree on the framework of implementation. And today it is a success story. Nigeria recalled the I.S. connection rate with mobile Internet in Africa today, what was unimaginable ten years ago. And three days ago, when it comes to electrical infrastructure, the government implemented a position agreed together along with the private sector concern that the electricity needs to be privatized. And the government handed over everything about electricity to the private sector three days ago. So there is a momentum going on. And I'm happy the representative of India said we don't want to be (indiscernible), we don't want to be hindered. We also want to really move forward and transform the socioeconomic life of global citizens and citizens from developing nations in particular. And if that's our objective, why shouldn't we -- if you look at the Internet infrastructure, if we boil down as Virat said, the private sector implements a number of these decisions, then what is wrong if we all -- because we have the agenda of the global citizens in mind. Based on the fact that we're enhancing cooperation, why can't we all listen together and then enhance the framework for decision-making? Yes, we've been discussing the IGF. Very productive. We now understand the processes. But to firm up a way forward, I think it just makes sense for private sector in particular -- and I believe civil society to play a very strong role -- to be involved. And together we will make one Internet forward for the global socioeconomic well-being of our people. That is my thinking, and that is my response to what I think the sincere request from my brother Parminder, why private sector should be part of it. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson. I think we had a very fruitful discussion this afternoon. We are going to continue it after the coffee break. I suggest we have a 20-minute coffee break. And after, when we come back, it will be Brazil who will take the floor, I promise. [ Break ] [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Ladies and gentlemen, can I ask you to take your seats, please. I would like to resume in one minute. So welcome back to the meeting, ladies and gentlemen. Phil? Can you take your seats, please. [ Gavel ] So before the coffee break, I promised Brazil the floor. I have one announcement. During our discussions, there was a reference to the U.K. contributions to the upcoming Council Working Group in the ITU. You have hard copies of the contribution here, I'm not mistaken. So please take your copy. I think it's at the end of the table. So having said that, I pass the floor to Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I'd like to make a few comments that might sound very obvious but I think that in light of the discussion we have had before break, I think it might be worthwhile making. First of all, I think -- and the Chair has mentioned this a number of times -- that we are not supposed and we are not mandated and we should not redraft the Tunis Agenda. So the context, we have the mandate and we have the Tunis Agenda. If we go back to the Tunis Agenda, paragraph 35, which spells the roles of stakeholders -- and I take into account the sense that we should not look at these as something written in stone because particularly, for example, with regard to civil society, we must maybe have a more open mind in regard to the roles. But as regards the role of government, it is very clearly spelled out that the policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of states. So I would like to echo what was mentioned by Parminder and others that may be one basic assumption we should -- that should guide our work is in cooperation with what's in the Tunis Agenda that's public policy for international-related lies within government. But then as we look to the paragraph on enhanced cooperation, there is the differentiation, a clear differentiation, that must be made between those international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and those technical and operational matters. And I think the differentiation is already there. It's not something that we should ourselves decide if we are making or not the differentiation between public policy -- it is already there. What I think the contribution that could come from our group, that would be a major contribution, would be to put some more meat and interpret and elaborate on this. And this brings us back to the issue of separating the different issues having categories. If as a result of our group, we can lead to a better understanding of what are those technical and operational issues, how they are being dealt with now, how from our perspective of enhanced cooperation something could be done to improve this -- and from our perspectives very clearly there is a need for information, for governments, even if they are not involved with this technical and operational daily activities to be more informed and feeling themselves also as involved in a way what's being done there is being cooperated and acknowledged. I think this is something that is missing until now. And, again, on the issue of public policies, to identify those -- to have different categories and in each one to specify whether this is being dealt with in some forum, how it is being done, what can be improved, and in cases there are no home, no -- I think as the APC has mentioned, are orphaned issues. What could we come about? I'm saying this because I saw in previous interventions the kind of rhetorical discussion that I think we should not let ourselves engage. On one hand, some parties are defending the role of one stakeholder that we should not put in place multilateral institutions that do not take into account... I think this is fully acknowledged and understood. What we need is more clarity with regard to very specific issues, categories, what we should do about this to make the spirit what is contained in the Tunis Agenda a reality. Again, we are not reformulating the Tunis Agenda. We are implementing and we are trying to come up with recommendations. But, again, the debates and the prerequisite is to have a clear understanding. And I refer to the text of the Tunis Agenda because some of the things that were said before in a way might be interpreted as seeking to reinterpret what is in the Tunis Agenda. Public policy issue is something that lies with government because it's part of the government mandate to do this. But what are those issues? What are those areas that should lie -- that should fall under this category and how that could be done? I think this is the kind of approach we need. And, again, we have to take a very open view in acknowledging everything that has been done, the decentralized system that should be fully taken into account and incorporated (indiscernible) but also take into account I think in some areas, also some particular mechanism should be -- this is our view. But we are open, of course, to the discussion and see how that can be addressed, even if within an existing mechanism. But I think this is the kind of discussion we might have. Otherwise, we will be falling back into rhetorical discussions. And I think this would not -- especially in light of the time constraints, we have not led to very concrete outcomes. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ambassador. I think we try to avoid rhetoric and rhetorical discussions. And as far as I'm concerned, I would also like to avoid going into definitions. I prefer to have some kind of common understanding. But we are not supposed to come up with definitions, which will take up all our time. I'm sure, if we can come clear to some kind of common understanding, probably it will be sufficient for future work. I don't deny that definitions are extremely useful, and they give clarity. But probably if we want to have some result as a result of our work, then we have to avoid that. United States. >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to take the opportunity of this discussion on several questions to react to some of the comments that have been made in the room and evoke perhaps some of the pieces of our submission that might come into play. First of all, I want to thank Saudi Arabia for their reference to the Seoul cyber conference and just add that, you know, it was part of a process of conferences beginning in London two years ago and then Budapest last year and will continue on into The Hague now next year. And as that set of conferences has transpired, has become increasingly more multistakeholder in its participation and its input and, also, particularly on a set of issues dealing with international security, cybersecurity, combating cybercrime and capacity-building. And I think the discussions there mirror much what they do in other venues in that they address areas (dropped audio) behavior, for example, and also in areas where cooperation is a real key in collaboration across stakeholders. And global collaboration is the key. In that sense, I would really like to affiliate with the elegant comments made by Sweden on the fact that solving problems does not always need a public policy process or a decisional process. That goes very much to the call for practicality and practical measures that we've heard from both colleagues from India and Brazil in addressing what is a very dynamic environment and decision-making processes are very difficult, have a great difficulty in addressing those in a timely manner in what is such a fast-moving environment. Therefore, enabling factors are important. And that is something that we think may be evoked in the U.K. proposal that we have been discussing but also to some extent in our submission, that national frameworks can enable not only consultation and engagement with stakeholders in a national context for national public policy making but also for enabling international cooperation whether it be building transparency with counterparts in other countries, whether it be addressing confidence-building measures or to evoke the full conference, once again, affirming norms of behavior. But importantly for engagement and collaboration on what those practical measures can be don't need a decisional process necessarily to collaborate to find solutions. And then, lastly, there was a comment made about the responsibility of governments in addition to the role of governments. And absolutely we are not saying that there is no responsibility for governments in this area, but it's not only the responsibility of the governments. So I'd really like to leave sort of three notions that encapsulate our response to this set of questions which I hope provide some examples of how not only we undertake in a consultative and multistakeholder process in our public policy making at home but our efforts towards empowering, enabling, and engaging roles for each of the stakeholders in any given particular policy or functional aspect. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, United States. I would like to remind you that for the scribes and the remote participants, it will be very advantageous if you can speak up loudly a bit slower. >>UNITED STATES: Sorry. Thank you for the reminder. >>CHAIR MAJOR: It is not only for you, for all of us. Don't take it personally. No, no, no, no. [ Laughter ] I perfectly got what you wanted to say so I have no problem with that. Anyone want to take the floor concerning -- Virat? >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Continuing from the comments made by distinguished delegate from Brazil and then United States, on the role of governments, typically as we discussed this issue -- and I think Parminder raised the point just sort of directly and eminently -- that this is typically a role for the governments, to represent the interests of all stakeholders at international fora. There are many U.N. bodies that see that process. However, the Tunis Agenda which was a result of perhaps the world's largest multistakeholder meeting, approximately 9,500 or so -- not quite sure what the numbers are -- which included very large participation from the government, recognized the role for other stakeholders on an equal footing along with the government thereby also recognizing the fact that where Internet governance was concerned, other stakeholders had to be brought on board. And this was, in some ways, innovative and a deviation. So we should remember that -- and remind ourselves as we discuss this because we all agreed we don't want to redefine the Tunis Agenda. It is the Tunis Agenda that brings in stakeholders in a way that many other international documents don't in many, many other areas of work. On the issue of public policy at a high level and not doing day-to-day which is the other piece that was made out with regards to government, I think it is important to note that what might be high-level public policy for one is day-to-day for the other. For example, there are organizations that handle CIRs every day and for them it is day-to-day. But for governments, it might be a global dialogue in a public policy discussion. So there is this distinction that we hope to make. This fine distinction is not that easy to make. I'm just taking one case, but we can go with child pornography. We can talk about something as basic as "Internet for all" which would certainly be a sovereign declaration by most governments. And I might add that not a single government in the world, at least today, would be able to do that with the involvement of the technical communities and the private sector. So even high-level principles. Case in point, at the time the Tunis Agenda was written, there were 2 billion mobile connections in the world. There are 7 billion today. 90% of those have been provided by the private sector, not something that the Tunis Agenda could have envisaged. There were 52 million connections in India. There are 900 million connections today, almost all provided by the private sector with a lot of innovation and help from academy and other stakeholders. Internet users, the same. 950 million around the world at the time Tunis Agenda was written. 2.7 billion today. Vast majority of those are on private sector networks. In India, 38 million at the end of 2005. Today, 170 million. So I think as this process evolves -- (echo) -- that role is fairly defined and, as I said, something that's very high level, access for all. Everybody hearing an echo? Should I go again? Okay. I think it's better now. But let me just directly and quickly go to the sections of the Tunis Agenda that are often invoked in discussing the roles of the government. Section 29, it actually states in no uncertain terms "with the full involvement of the governments." Now, it need not have said that. In fact, says "with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, the civil society, and the international organizations" which recognizes the fact that they use the word "full involvement" and immediately after that it states "all the stakeholders." By the way, it leaves out technical community and academia, which is a section by itself here, which shows how much the world has developed. There are five principles here that were not mentioned in the Tunis Agenda as we discussed Section 29. Section 31, "based on full participation of all stakeholders," it uses the word "full participation of all stakeholders." Section 60, that is also referred to, which talks about that "the current mechanisms require attention are not adequately" -- "which are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms." Now, this doesn't mean that they cannot be currently addressed. It says they are not currently being addressed. And there are a lot of suggestions in response to the questionnaire which we have seen which says we can expand, improve, enhance the role of IGF and any of the other mechanisms that currently exist. It does not say it cannot. It says "may not currently." Again, 68: Governments in an equal role. And it talks about development of public policy. It does not say "decision-making" in public policy. It does not use the word "decision-making." So if you were to -- 69, same, uses the word "government on an equal footing." There would be those who could interpret that an equal footing with the other stakeholders. It is also a matter of interpretation. But if you were to focus our entire attention on the Tunis Agenda, then there is sort of sufficient language here which can be interpreted as one that lends itself to an equal participation for all the stakeholders, including some that were no envisaged at the time the Tunis Agenda was written. The last piece that I would like to submit, Mr. Chairman, is that the products, the services, the offerings that are coming out and the innovation that is coming out can become a casualty to any public policy decisions that are not taking into consideration at an equal footing all the stakeholders in the room. And that would be a bit of a tragedy. And, therefore, I think we should be careful as we interpret the Tunis Agenda one way or the other. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Virat. I think it was a very useful reminder about the different paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda. Virat relates that we look at the Tunis Agenda with a fresh eye. Sweden, please. >>SWEDEN: Thank you. Well, just very briefly because I think most have already been said by the last intervention we heard. But I think it's very important that we read the Tunis Agenda as a whole and not cherry pick too much specific articles there. And I wanted also to highlight Article 69, for example. But I think that is very important to keep in mind. I would also like to take the opportunity because our colleague from Saudi Arabia mentioned the Seoul conference on cybersecurity, and that was also mentioned by our U.S. colleague and how it has been -- how that is an evolving process that is to a larger extent also including all stakeholders. But since our minister made certain remarks there about proposals on potential principles on surveillance, I think it's very important to keep in mind in that context that that was a product that he presented, a product of extensive multistakeholder work and multistakeholder dialogue. And I think that's also -- I just wanted to make that remark given that it was explicitly brought up here. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Just a thought. We are here as a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation to fulfill a mandate. We are here to evaluate, to review the inputs which have been submitted by stakeholders. I understand it doesn't exclude that we revisit the Tunis Agenda. It doesn't exclude to refer to other events which have taken place. I would like you to concentrate on our main task. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. The main point I wish to make was just a correction to what my colleague Virat spoke about. There is no mention in Tunis Agenda of an equal footing among stakeholders. It is only mentioned in 69 in a specific relevance of governments in terms of "equal footing of all stakeholders." I'm not presenting my views on this issue, just a correction of the fact. I also heard with a lot of interest Sweden's and U.S.' interventions on the decision-making procedures and relevance of the role of different stakeholders. And I did hear them say that not every issue requires a decision-making process or a public policy response in which I completely agree that, yes, a lot of stuff doesn't require that kind of response. And that also is a part of Internet governance systems. However, as long as we are talking about actual public policy decisions, that still remains that decision-making process has to be done by representative bodies. And just a last part, because this issue has come in two or three interventions, that why private sector should have a role in decision-making is because it lays the infrastructure. And that's a rather new kind of argument because private sector organizes productive systems of the society in all sectors. Medical practices are based on medicines which are exclusively made by the private sector. Surgical instruments are made by private sector. It does not, therefore, mean that pharma companies have a veto on health policies in any country. So I think the fact that somebody has the productive resources is not a good logic to say that they have a role in public policy making. So since that came -- that logic came as explaining why there should be a role here, I thought I should make a comment on that as well. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. Majed. Saudi Arabia, sir. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My intervention is about when I heard our colleagues try to explain the Tunis Agenda, I mean, item by item. I would like our interventionists to concentrate on the mandate of our work. However, I would rather if the paragraphs that has been read in full not just to single out some of the words there just to give the real meaning for that paragraph, for example, 68 and 79, because when it talks about the equal footing, it was following the sentence to enable governments in an equal footing. So that means the governments in an equal footing. However, Mr. Chairman, this is not the place to discuss this. And I would like not to see that we are just arguing about Tunis Agenda and trying to interpret it, as, I mean, everyone differently. But in regards to the multistakeholder model, I noticed that even in the many conferences, they bring this issue that some governments speaks as a government, some governments with the multistakeholder model and the others is against the multistakeholder model. And this is not true. Saudi Arabia supports the multistakeholder model. However, the reality or the fact that people trying to not talk about the roles of the multistakeholder in that model, that's the -- I mean, what's the matter for us. We agree on the multistakeholder model, but we need to implement the roles for each stakeholder. And it is becoming annoying for me just to see in many fora that people just stress the multistakeholder model. And if Tunis Agenda actually recognizes the multistakeholder model, it identified the roles of the multistakeholder model. And what we want as a government, speaking from Saudi Arabia, is to enable the governments to implement its role based on Tunis Agenda and based on the -- what happened after the nine years still. we need to enable governments to take the role and responsibilities. And in regards to the Seoul conference, it's a very good conference and but still the purpose of such conference is to bring the -- raise the awareness, and it's a very good conference to see the different perspectives in a very high level from countries. But at the end, it's for raising the awareness and perspectives of governments or other stakeholders. And for me, this is still missing something. Missing recommendations or policies and output that when we meet we agree on something, we have something like a public policy that we can implement when we leave. And that's what we need in regards to the enhanced cooperation. We can talk and talk and talk, very good talks and we agree in this talk, but we need to see how we implement this. And that's what we need to have an international public policy, to solve the issues we face now in the interim. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. I think you have formulated the role of this group as well because we are supposed to give recommendations concerning implementation of the enhanced cooperation. So I think all of us are aware that at the end of the day we should come up with recommendations. I can see Marilyn asking for the floor and then Virat. Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. I'm struck by a couple of things, and one of them is that for many of us who lived through the four years of the two phases of the WSIS, and participated actively in the final word selection that forms the Tunis Agenda, I think we need to remember that there were two phases and there are -- also the WSIS outcome documents also include the principles, the declaration of principles. Because I think perhaps we're losing a little bit of vision that we came away from the WSIS. If I recall, when we started the first phase of the world summit, stakeholders were not allowed in the room and governments were meeting with all good intentions, talking about highly technical issues but without the participation of the -- of the stakeholders who bring a unique understanding. And who often bring not just technical information but also understanding about legal structures, understanding about social structures, understanding about services and products in the same way that government representatives do but with different -- with different areas of perhaps accountability or focus. Paragraph 72 in the Tunis Agenda, I think the -- our colleague from Sweden reminded us of something that is very wise words and that is, this document was agreed to by heads of state as a totality. In fact, heads of state didn't sign off on a single paragraph. They signed off on the entire document. And there's a lot in paragraph 72 that also talks about the role of the IGF in discussing public policy issues related to key elements of Internet Governance, facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different crosscutting international policy public issues regarding the Internet and discussing issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body. So I would just think that as we go away for the evening we probably all want to think about how we take into account the agreements that were negotiated and how we look at our assignment. We will also have tomorrow morning the initial mapping document to look at and to see if that helps us in thinking about how issues are being addressed and where they're being addressed, and what the satisfaction level is about how different issues are being addressed and it will bring us perhaps to identifying gaps and to being able to think about what spaces and places can be turned to and whether there is a need for any new places and spaces. I'm sorry to hear Saudi Arabia say that it's becoming annoying. I think maybe fatigued is the word, perhaps, not to -- to hear us talk about multistakeholder but I think what I'm detecting is perhaps a different -- different parties have a different expectation about what multistakeholder means and whether multistakeholder is bottom-up participatory and actively engaged at all stages versus consultative. And that may be a difference of opinion by some parties versus others. For myself, as a business representative, I think the issue for multistakeholder is that it must be bottom-up, it must be participatory, and that governments, I think, share with citizens of their countries and of the world the interest in making the most informed, most effective, most responsible policies possible. And to do that, we need to put as many brains and as many perspectives into the discussion as possible. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. I believe this group is on the right track. We have the brilliant brains here, we have the experts here from all stakeholders, and with all the hope that we shall come up with some brilliant recommendations. Are there any other (indiscernible), Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Just a very brief comment, and taking what has just been said by Marilyn Cade and recalling the audience that prepared at the beginning of these -- holding the side around Internet Governance with the exclusion of civil society and now we are thankfully incorporating discussions. But one thing that disturbs me at some point as a diplomat that in some sense we see it to be reverse movement. Governments that were in the front line, in the limelight in the beginning, are now -- there's a clear movement to exclude government, it seems on some -- at least from some -- at least from some -- specifically the beauty of the pact of the Tunis Agenda, the outcome documents emerging from the World Summit on Information Society to recognize that the different stakeholders have different roles and responsibilities. They should work together. They should work mutually to find ways as Marilyn Cade said to lead to very informed decisions, to provide an environment to assist everyone in this collective endeavor. And it is somewhat disturbing to see some -- sometime there is a confusion about this, and maybe in the minds of some it may be the lack of historical experience of some actions undertaken by governments. (indiscernible) maybe not to allow governments to fulfill their roles in regard to -- specifically in the issues we have before us, that is public policy. So there is -- it is -- maybe disturbing is not the right word. But some people say no, let's not leave this to governments. Let's lead together because that's the spirit from -- that is the spirit from Tunis multistakeholder. That's recognizing that each stakeholder has different role and responsibilities. And I find for governments clearly a role for public policy. I think the -- our task is to interpret this in a way that is consistent with the spirit of the Tunis Agenda. But saying that an apple is an apple, a pear is a pear, not making a decision, otherwise the discussion is -- I think the kind of confusion that has been taking place over the years found in the -- the cacophony and the lack of a common understanding of differentiation of situation that requires different responses will not be healthy if we do not guide our work by very clear understanding of the picture, of the differentiation of the situations. And there, specifically trying to figure out what lies -- what falls under this category of public policy that will require, let's say, governments to be enabled to fulfill their roles with the fullest seasoned participation of stakeholders to the benefit of all. But I would again -- I see that kind of, let's say, reversal of the situation and a movement in the direction that is not also, I think, the right direction. I think we should be working together collectively, a joint effort with mutual respect, mutual recognition of different roles and responsibilities and be open on all parts to fully engage to the benefit of the eco-system as a whole. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. I can see Grace, but I have been advised that there is some problem with the microphone for remote participation so I ask your indulgence and I would like to suspend the meeting for about three minutes. So bear with me, and we shall resume in three minutes time. ( break ) >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for your patience. I think we cannot solve this problem but it doesn't affect our meeting. I'm really sorry about the remote participants. We have about 10, 12 minutes to go until the end of this meeting, and I can see two nameplates. So first Grace and then (saying name) and at the end of the meeting I would like to turn to the observers, if they have anything to add, to say or any observation, and then I would like to conclude our meeting for today. So Grace, please, take the floor. >>GRACE GITHAIGA: It's just some very quick -- very quick comments. One on multistakeholder and one on roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders. And it's just to support what Marilyn was raising, that multistakeholder is really -- must ensure participation from all stakeholder groups. It also needs to be inclusive, transparent, and accountable and must be global in nature and needs to be managed in such a way that none of the stakeholders or regions can determine the outcome without the cooperation of all other stakeholder groups and regions. And in terms of responsibilities of the different stakeholders, I feel there needs to recognize that the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders in Internet Governance cannot be fixed and they will vary depending on the issue or the process or task at hand. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Grace. India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I think after the intervention by our distinguished ambassador from Brazil, I think not much is left to say. We also have same as -- concerns in terms of the direction which we are going. And again, we would like to just flag this issue that between enhanced cooperation and IGF, I don't think we're talking one against the other. I don't think that is the right way to go, if you compare them and then we say we're doing good there and everything is covered there and thereby -- the whole purpose of the working group is perhaps not there, and so I think that -- we should not try and sort of reduce the importance and the relevance of this particular working group. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. It was not my understanding that we are going against each other. It is my understanding that we are talking about complementary processes. As I mentioned this morning, interdependent processes. Or rather independent. And we may discuss eventually the same issues in both places, but probably the accents are a bit different and the outcome may be different. So today we have gone through three groups of issues. We have discussed quite a lot of questions, so we have a kind of feel for the questions. And I'm really glad that we have very useful and very fruitful discussions today and it's very promising for the coming two days. I'm turning now to the observers, if you have anything to add or complement. Anyone from the room, any additional comments? In case you don't have any comments, so I would like to see you tomorrow at 10:00. Hopefully by then we are going to have this spreadsheet document from the voluntary task force and we shall resume tomorrow at 10:00. I hope we can go through in the morning the remaining two groups and to go into the deeper discussion on some of the issues with the hope of coming with some recommendations at the end of Friday. So have a nice -- yes, Virat. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Just a housekeeping question. Can we leave some of the documents here, will the room be locked or should we carry everything back? Because there's a lot of paperwork here. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I am advised that you better take everything with you. So thank you for your active participation, and I wish you a very nice evening tonight. Have a nice sleep for those who are having jet lag, and hope to see you tomorrow at 10:00. Thank you. ***Live scribing by Brewer & Darrenougue - www.quicktext.com*** -------------- next part -------------- 7 November, 2013 10:00 a.m. Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Geneva, Switzerland >>CHAIR MAJORS: Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. Please take your seats. I'm happy to see you. You seem to be fresh and ready to work, even though it's a beautiful day outside. So I would like to give you a short summary of what we have done yesterday and what I propose for today. So yesterday we started with the introductory remarks and the most important part is the mandate we have so everybody is aware of the mandate and I would like to continue our work in this spirit. We also agreed on the modalities of the work, that is, we are going to base our discussions on the contributions and we have a document to help us, that is the summary, or the analysis of responses. Which there was an attempt to streamline and downsize the contributions. We also agreed that we are going to discuss the questions in groups, and we had a very good discussion on Group 1 which was about enhanced cooperation, meaning significance and degree of implementation. And there was a kind of agreement that we can we may consider it as the glass half full, half empty. I expressed my wish that we approach in an optimistic way, that is, the glass is full -- half full, and we are going to make it complete. That is our task. In the second group we had public policy issues, mechanisms, and question pertaining to the IGF. And there was a proposal to map different issues. There was a voluntary task force which promised me to have the document by this morning, and I'm happy to report to you that the document has been prepared. So I congratulate to the participants of this voluntary task group and they have done a great job. So after that in the afternoon we discussed the questions pertaining to Group 3, which is about the role of the stakeholders, especially the governments. I sensed a kind of agreement on the multistakeholder approach. Naturally there was -- there were divergences as to the interpretation, what it means. Some said that the role of government may be underestimated or even belittled, and there was some discussion about the interpretation of the Tunis Agenda. It is also felt that the Internet seems changing and it has changed rapidly since 2005 and there are emerging issues, and these emerging issues also create public policy issues. So basically I think that's what -- where we stopped yesterday. I think we had a very good and constructive discussion and what is very important to me, that there was a kind of mutual trust. So I really congratulate you for this very constructive approach. Now, we have the document. I think it will be made available shortly, which was prepared by the voluntary task group. What I propose is just to go over the document. I don't really want to have detailed discussion of the document because I think it's rather complex and it needs further consideration and probably some members of the group would like to take it back to capital and discuss it with other stakeholders or other colleagues back home. So what I propose, once we go through the document, we try and concentrate on Group 4 and 5 questions and eventually, depending upon the discussions we are going to have, we may request the Secretariat to prepare a kind of more elaborate document, a detailed one, in the style we had for the analysis of the responses. And probably this background document may be made available eventually for our next meeting, depending, naturally on us, when we decide to have our next meeting. And this is also depending on where we are going to stop tomorrow at 6:00. So this is my proposal, and I'm just asking the Secretariat if the document is available. So we need five minutes. So in the meantime, I suggest to you that we start discussing Group 4. But before we're doing that, I would like to ask you if you have any comments, remarks, observations, questions, whatever. If not, I would like to ask you to look into the questions in Group 4. They're all of the developing countries, and probably we may continue discussions in five minutes with that. And we may come back to the document after the coffee break which will be, as we agreed yesterday, at 11:15. [ Break ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: You're still reading or would you like to continue? It's up to you. If you need some more time. But I think we can start the discussions. Unfortunately, it seems to me that we have some technical problems for the remote participants. The microphone doesn't seem to be working. So I would like to ask remote participants in case they want to contribute -- eventually -- I believe they can see the captioning. And they can send in written form. Okay. So they can't hear but they can talk. Okay. Good. Okay. So we are going to discuss Group 4, issues related to developing countries. I can see Carlos. >>CARLOS AFONSO: Good morning. It's just information, and I don't know if this is already known but in the summary the responses to the questionnaire by APC are not actually theirs. The ones that are quoted as APC, according to the APC itself, are from the Best Bits responses to the questionnaire. This is just information. The second thing that I would like to note is that most of the quotations in the summary are from developing countries and interesting that I think the emphasis should be more on the opinion of the developing countries than the developed countries themselves. No big deal, but I think it's a bit unbalanced. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Carlos, for this contribution. I believe we tried to make the group balanced, and probably in the room we have representatives who can contribute in this sense and I really encourage everyone to contribute in general and specifically to these questions we are discussing now. Jimson. >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Distinguished Chair, Excellencies, Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen, Jimson Olufuye is my name. Good morning. As you know, I am the chair of the Africa ICT Alliance with the alliance of ICT, private sector groups, institutions throughout Africa. We started last year to bring together the voice of the private sector, and as of now there are about 12 African countries involved that is truly a private sector organizations, the ICT industry groups. I myself, I used to be the president of the Information Technology Industry Association of Nigeria, up to 2011. While talking about developing countries, can be enhanced to effectively contribute to the discussion. I would like to say simply that Africa in particular is very much aware of the impact of Internet to its relevance to development right now and as Democratic Republic of Congo nation in the submission that we need to be very careful with regard to the new mechanism and trying to know -- I want to be aware of the current deliverables and possibilities. So within that understanding, several other states in Africa came together last week with many of the ministers across Africa, we came together. We were in Tegali with regard to transform Africa and they came out with the manifesto that talks about Smart Africa, Smart Africa manifesto. And there's one principle in that manifesto which I found very, very interesting with regard to our government, what's the intention of our government, is that they are going to put private sector first in all their discussions. The manifesto is available with me, I will share it if so required. The African government felt that all stakeholders should be involved in the socioeconomic development of the continent. The summit was shared by His Excellency, president Paul Kagame and was co-hosted by ITU, Dr. Hamadoun Toure, and as I said six other African head of states dealt with many, many stuff. So that is the direction that everybody should be involved at all level of discussion. And in fact, I was privileged because I'm visiting Abuja and I was preparing for this meeting that I have to come to be part of it, as I have the privilege of leading the private sector ICT group for Africa. So when we discuss enhanced cooperation, as we have seen in the mapping, there are a lot of dimensions. Africa needs more engagement, (indiscernible) in the current situations, and also not to take any mood out to drop the momentum that has been contributed positively to the development we're witnessing on the African continent. That's what I want to contribute for the start. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson. And I think it's very important what you have said and very instructive for us. I can see Grace. >> GRACE GITHAIGA: I think this is a very important question to discuss because I was just looking at the other contributions even to the questionnaire and there was very little participation from African governments. In fact, I don't even think there was. And Africa, being, you know, a continent with I don't know 50 countries, it's really outstanding that they did not participate. When it comes to issues of like IGF, national IGF, I know, for example, in Kenya it's been accused of just being a talk shop and not contributing practical solutions to the process. So just thinking about the role of developing countries and how it can be made more effective, I think I would want to support what APC suggested, that we have seen developing countries be excluded at different levels. But also self-exclude. So, you know, addressing this problem is actually not trivial. So the way in which Internet governance for development has been conceived and addressed in IGF and in other global spaces has not been useful. It's been seen as narrow and top-down and often does not go beyond access issues. So probably we need to start thinking of a distributed structure of Internet governance that is well-defined with aims and policies that may resolve this problem and make it obvious to developing countries that the process is worth our time. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Grace. If I've got you right, raising issues is one of the things you think we should be doing. It's very useful. We are heading toward some kind of recommendation. I think that's a better way to go ahead. Baher, and then I see Iran. and Virat. Yes, Baher. >>BAHER ESMAT: Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, everyone. I'm Baher Esmat with ICANN. On the question of developing countries, I think the responses -- or many of the responses that came to the questionnaire illustrated, you know, some of the efforts in building capacities in developing countries, whether in the global space of Internet governance and Internet policy issues or even within the technical space. In the past years -- and being, you know, myself I come from a developing countries -- we've seen a lot of capacity-building initiatives undertaken by Internet organizations, particularly Internet Society and the regional Internet registries in cooperation with national institutes and technical organizations, national technical organizations such as ccTLD, ccTLD managers and areas like IPv6, DNS -- DNS and DNSSEC and so forth. So this is one area that there is, I think, clear recognition of progress made that -- and also for a need for further development and improvement and more sort of engagement in that regard. The other aspect is the national and regional IGFs also in the past couple of years have seen development and progress made in this area. I've been part of one of regional IGFs, the (indiscernible) IGFs, for the past couple of years. We've had two successful annual meetings. We managed to -- we as community managed to attract participation from the global Internet community in the Arab region, particularly from civil society and end user community. And I'm sure that in other parts of the world there have been success stories about national regional IGFs. I think the good thing about the IGFs like the global IGF itself, it provided the platform for the Internet community in developing countries to engage in discussions about Internet policies. This is something that is not often provided at national level in many -- in many countries. Still on capacity building and on the IGF in particular, in the last IGF meeting in Bali we've seen a special track for capacity building in that meeting. We've also seen a daily session, orientation session for newcomers trying to explain, you know, concepts and trends in the Internet governance space, and the feedback we've heard in Bali and afterwards about this session -- about those sessions was very positive. One last remark on developing countries and the sort of enhanced cooperation development in developing countries, the issue of language or the multilingualization aspect of Internet governance, and I understand that there are maybe a couple of questions that deal with this, this aspect separately. But I would like to note that one sort of remark that we often hear from participants in the Arab region is about lack of materials and lack of tools in the Arabic language, for instance, that could encourage and help more participation and get more people to participate in Internet governance fora. This is -- this could cover a range of issues from making materials available in different languages, making tools available in different languages, and also maybe trying to develop a glossary of terms, Internet governance terms in different languages. And one of the recent initiatives that UNESCO, together with ICANN and The Internet Society are undertaking, is to develop a glossary of Internet governance terms in Arabic language. And the announcement of this initiative was made in Bali a couple of weeks ago, and the three organizations will start working on the project in the next couple of weeks and we hope by mid next year we'll have a draft product for discussing these terms. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Baher. Then I think it was Iran who wants the floor first and then Virat. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, everyone. Regarding Question 10, or this group of questions, I think we need to reply to a primary question first. If the developing countries have a role in global Internet governance and then ask how this role can be made more effective, according to what we have received from developing countries through questionnaire and what we heard in the room, many steps should be taken to consider the developing countries has a role in global Internet governance. I believe there is somehow a link between responses to Question 10 and 3. We need to look at what developing countries reply to Question 3. If their responses to Question 3 shows a good extent of enhanced cooperation has been implemented, then we can say they have a role. But as we have seen, the response is different. If we want to hear how this role, which has not been established to be made more effective, it can be done by implementing the Tunis Agenda. Especially paragraph 35, 69, and 68. Participation of developing countries in global Internet governance cannot be done only through participation in dialogues or discussions. That's global level. It's their sovereign rights that has to be exercised, according to paragraph 35a of Tunis Agenda. I believe that investment, technical cooperation, education, capacity building, and so on are necessary but not the main factor in this regard, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Iran. Virat? >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From the replies that have been received, it is quite clear that -- as my colleague stated some time back, that many of the replies that have been quoted are from the developing countries. But, in fact, the substantive issues have been highlighted by those who have contributed from the developing countries. First, if you turn to the Tunis Agenda, Section 3 through 28 are devoted to the issue of financing. I know comments have been made about how important financing is of infrastructure. But if you read through the documents, sir, I would urge that nearly a third of the entire Tunis Agenda not only concentrates on the lack of financing as a major issue but, in fact, lays that as a precursor to the Internet governance issues that begin after Section 28. In fact, it also recognizes in Section 13 that til recently and in the past, public financing was being used for building infrastructure. But that is no longer the case and private sector investments are required. So I would argue, sir, and submit to you that financial investments in infrastructure in a world where merely 40% has access to online services of which Africa at 16% and Asia-Pacific at 32% of the citizens is particularly underserved is a significant and major issue as we discuss the entire proposition of enhanced cooperation. Thank you, an ITU report of 2013 shows that the gender distribution and access of online services is much better than it was when mobile services were penetrating the world. In terms of online access, 37% or 1.3 billion women and 41% men or approximately 1.5 billion men have access to online services totaling to a total of 2.7 billion online people and about 40% households across the world. If you turn to the responses that have been given beyond the point of investment beyond the private sector and the contributions of the technical communities to reduce the cost of access by constantly innovating technologies as well as mutual discussions between carriers to reduce the cost of interconnection and international cable bandwidth, you would see that the IGF both at local and regional levels have received a thumbs-up from nearly across the board from all the communities who have responded. Two from India, Internet Democracy Project and SFLC have been particularly clear about the need and the importance of the idea of processes and the issues that lead to free speech where developing countries are concerned. I would just wrap up by submitting to you in India we have, after hosting the first IGF in 2008, initiated a program to link together multistakeholder groups on a common platform in 2012. It was an informal initiative, a first step to a formal IGF. It was attended by nearly 400 plus stakeholders, 12 bandwidth sessions across two days, 60 speakers. And they covered everything including access but also free speech, issues of capacity-building, net neutrality, and many others which are specific to India but have a linkage to the global five themes of the IGF. This year we congratulate the government of India which has called in a formal process for a national MAG that has been formulated, and we expect that that meeting will be called soon. We also hope that more developing countries will generate local IGFs and issues such as enhanced cooperation are those that are represented by stakeholders at global fora would be discussed nationally and that there would be sufficient opportunity for developing country citizens to participate in a forum such as this through the domestic engagement and also in the global IGFs such as the one that will occur in Istanbul next year. It is not easy for everybody to travel. Each of these cost between 3,000 to $5,000. And so I think the emphasis that has been provided in the questionnaires and the responses of national IGFs as a formal process for not only a dialogue but also development of policy eventually is an excellent step, something that we support and hopefully will participate in actively in the future. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Virat. Very useful thoughts and very elaborate intervention. One remark, the IGF in Hyderabad was the third one. Was preceded by Athens and Rio. (saying name) was the first one, and this was a great IGF. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. And good morning to everybody. Developing countries have a host of problems, and I would focus on the issue of the mandate of this working group which is, in my understanding, international public policy making processes and the extent or absence of developing countries in international public policy making. For that purpose, I would separate the technical processes -- technical policy development processes, ICANNs and regional RIRs, which have their own problems, but that's not what I think primarily we are dealing with here. I would also exclude the (indiscernible) dialect processes, which is the IGF, which has its own issues about developing country participation. But that again is not the principal purpose of this working group's deliberations, and the principle purpose is international public policy making processes. And to understand where developing countries stand in this regard, we have to understand what are the current processes of international public policy making with respect to the Internet. Where does the international public policy making take place? If we understand that, we probably can comment on whether developing countries participate or whether participation has to be improved. Again, removing the technical policy side. We need to focus, what is it that development of public policy making is taking place? And it is my summation that it takes place -- (echo). Is it okay? It's okay now. Yes. >> (speaker off microphone). >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: So it is either made by the big countries, which is where the biggest international -- Internet business is. Concentrated. And by default, it then gets reflected in the global Internet business. And that is take-it-or-leave-it policy for the whole developing world. That's where public policy making takes place, largely in the U.S. in that case. Secondly, it takes place in rich country clubs like the OECD. OECD, as you all know, has a very strong Internet policy making organ which is called the Committee on Computers, Information and Communications Policy. It is an emerging platform, does public policy development. However, I'm very surprised that when that particular Internet policy mechanism is so active and the most active of the OECD parties, the logic is used at the global level that there is not enough public policy issues to be dealt by a divergent mechanism. That escapes my understanding. But in any case, that's where a lot of public policy making takes place. And as you probably all know recently, OECD developed the Principles for Internet Public Policy Making. That is public policy by its own name. Principles for Internet public policy were developed by an intergovernmental process through advisory structures. The same which was India's (indiscernible) proposal which was rubbished on the global level. Exactly the same processes developed public policy principles. And, importantly, they did not develop it only for the OECD. The real intention is to see global adoption of these policy principles. And it is almost formal that it has been sought that country to country, the goal was to say, okay, why don't you agree to these principles because these principles already exist. And that's not a new model. We all know about the Budapest cybercrime conference and the convention. There are a lot of mechanisms which tried to pursue developing countries to sign on by saying it is a good instrument and it is already existing so why don't you just sign it. It is a good instrument, I accept, and you can sign on it. But the process of such kind of exclusive policy making takes place. The (indiscernible) process is a similar one, which a certain number of countries decides certain principles and then we have a bigger country -- group of countries which are cooped, et cetera, et cetera. I think we need to understand where global public policy making takes place and what is the role of developing countries. More or less, they don't exist. They are sold well-prepared governance and a policy framework as take it or leave it. And being on the global grid of the Internet, there is not much option for countries not to accept what is increasing because most of the richest countries have the dominant model. I think what we need to focus on is that this is where public policy making takes place and where developing countries are with that and what is needed to be improved in that respect. Therefore, I would easily say if OECD's CCICP is one of the principle organs for global public policy making, it should be inclusive of all countries. If it actually does become inclusive of all countries, that's precisely the proposal which India gave to the U.N. two years back. There is no difference between that model and the global model which India proposed. So I think we need to focus on where public policy making takes place and the role of developing countries. And capacity-building, yes, is very important. But as we know in WIPO and WTO areas, capacity-building has to be seen as separate from the participation issue. They are two different issues and should not be seen together. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. Sweden, then Brazil, and India. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. And good morning to all colleagues. I agree with what has been mentioned before, that it's primarily a task for developing countries to define what are the main public policy issues of relevance to them and also, of course, to assess to what extent they feel that they can participate in existing global foras that deals with these issues. However, I just wanted to respond a little bit to what Jimson said because we certainly think that it was very encouraging to see the Smart Africa manifesto and some of the -- some of the areas that were identified there such as access, the access issue, accountability, accountability in the sense of better communication between government and citizens, better communication between government and private sector which leads to improved functioning of the society, improvement of democratic system and the enabling environment for the private sector which I think also was highlighted very much. We just want to say that we see that as very encouraging and a sign of a number of developing countries playing a role and taking up a role in Internet -- related to Internet governance issues. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Brazil, please. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an issue for Brazil that's very dear. Usually we -- as we look into our participation in Internet governance, we used to say there are two basic parameters for our initiatives. One of them is our full adherence to the multistakeholder model. This is something that is very embedded in our positions and have strong reference to the model we embrace nationally. And the second one is the development by nation of issues that we also seek to highlight. And we are, of course, aware that the problems around participation of developing countries in Internet governance fora are not exclusive to Internet governance. It relates to development, the problems related to the condition of development: Financial constraints, lack of personal capacity-building. As has been stated before, each of these should be looked into its own merit and deserves specific answers and initiatives. And it affects all stakeholders. It affects governments. It affects civil society. It affects -- as we look into a room which we could adequately face multistakeholder participation, but we clearly see lack of participation from developing countries at all levels, the governance, civil society. (indiscernible). It is of concern to us because it has an impact even for the agenda setting of discussions. I will give an example. I participated in the IGF meeting in Baku, and I thought it was productive and very important for my own understanding of the process. This was my first IGF. But I was a bit frustrated by a discussion we had. There was a session that was termed "development issues," issues of concern for developing countries. And I was a bit surprised to realize that the most important topic on the discussion was how to expand in the developing world the new generic top-level domains. That was the issue. What can be done? Why did not developing countries adhere en masse to this initiative that is so good, so -- that was devised to address developing countries? Why did it not happen? What can be done to address this? Of course, even some developing countries members took -- had an apologetic tone and said in our case, maybe there was not much awareness about this, what can we do. We need to develop business. And I took the floor and I said, I feel a bit frustrated because I thought we would be discussing issues that are on the agenda for developing countries that are not only in this forum, like access, finance, capacity-building. And all of these were not in the discussion. And I tried to provoke a discussion on that. There was no discussion on that. And people started -- again, were: What can we do to foster gTLDs in developing countries? So I think even for the point of your agenda setting, it is important to have developing countries' participation in order to impact on the agenda. And then it brings me to think how can we reconcile these constraints for participation and that leads sometimes to a call for -- to have a single fora to deal with all the issues since there is difficulty to participate in a multitude of Internet governance-related fora. So maybe an easy way is to let's make one single place where we can discuss one thing and make decisions for. I don't think that would work to that extent because we, of course, want to make sure we keep in mind a distributed structure of Internet governance that is something that could not be touched and should not be touched upon. But. How can we reconcile this need for more meaningful participation, involvement with this distributed structure of Internet governance? For myself, I think one clear answer is to provide some ways in which information could flow more. I think it's important to devise ways in which the lack of physical participation could be compensated by access to relevant outputs, information arising from those fora. I think this would be one way to maybe -- a limited way to address. But, of course, we will not be looking to all -- I seen a number of 150 processes that deal with Internet. So maybe you do not need information on everything that's going on in all fora. But as regards relevant things that are taking place that could impact on developing countries, I think we should devise maybe a friendly user mechanisms in which information could flow better. I think that would be one way to assist. And from our perspective -- and then we refer to the proposal regarding enhanced cooperation as such, this difficulty regarding participation reinforces our understanding and our conviction that we need some platform that would enable for discussion of issues related to Internet governance in a holistic, integrated manner. I think this would be an additional benefit besides filling a gap in the overall structure. That would also assist developing countries, but participation enables to have a more comprehensive view of issues. Even if this platform, I think how that should be devised, would it lead to decision-making or would it be of a more informative and policy discussion, this is something we should maybe evolve discussion. But, clearly, there is a need for a place in which such a discussion could take place. And I would see an additional benefit regarding this as a tool to assist developing countries' participation. And here I mentioned at all levels, not only governments but also stakeholders. So I think I will stop at this. But I think this issue is very clearly linked to the notion that we need to put in place some structure that will allow -- what issues will be dealt with by this, how this could be addressed. I think it's something for further discussion. But, clearly, we see a need for this as a way to assist and to foster developing countries' participation on Internet governance-related discussions. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ambassador. I share your impressions about the Baku meeting when we were confronted with the reality. Reality is always difficult to face. After that, I think it was India who asked for the floor. And then we have the remote participant, Joy Liddicoat. And then Carlos and Marilyn. Okay. So India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. Good morning to colleagues in the room. Today I think we are confronted with this very important dimension of our discussion. As we see it, there are two key pillars on which we could perhaps look at coming up with some recommendations. The first pillar is where we are talking about countries or regions or places where there is no access to Internet. That is one dimension of the issue, where if they're not part of this process, there's no question of their seeking any role in the governance eventually. On that I think we have come up with any number of subproblems within that category. The issues, how do we improve this which is leading to a digital divide of a kind, which in 2005 and 2013/'14, I think there were regions that have been left behind. The divide is increasing exponentially. They lag behind in an exponential manner because the speed at which progress on Internet is making would make them deprived for eternity if we do not address that. So that's an important dimension. As a working group, we should look at recommendations under which I think very eminent suggestions have come earlier. The speakers mentioned about the need for financing. How do we touch upon the issue? Should we make recommendations on that? Secondly, whether capacity-building in terms of the latest technology transfers or training programs, et cetera. Then coming to the other side of it, wherever there is access to Internet, then the second challenge is those regions and countries respective of the origin, in this case largely we are talking about developing countries, whether they have any significant role in Internet governance-related policies at the international level. I think there's the second challenge. If you are looking at the later part of it, I think we are about to discover that we are all wanting to be part of a process through a mechanism but that mechanism at the international -- or global level is not present. We have forums for discussion. We have forums for dialogue. But forums where we can actually make a contribution to the extent of being able to decide, again, is something which is lacking. A recognition of this fact has come through in the replies that have been given as well as in our discussions. I think it will be very important also to touch upon this issue as we make a recommendation, at which point in time then the participation of developing countries in the Internet governance would become a subset of that particular larger recommendation we intend to make. I think that's where Tunis Agenda has made the recognition that we should maximize the participation of developing countries in Internet governance. But if we do not even have a structure, then why talk about developing countries? I mean, they are part of the subset of the global community. So I think it remains in a vacuum. If we do not create a structure or a mechanism for effective participation of -- I think it is at all levels. I think as the Ambassador of Brazil very rightly pointed out, this gap exists at all levels, whether it is government, whether it is civil society, private sector, or academia in developing countries. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. I think now the floor is the remote participant. That is Joy. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. Can you hear me? Thank you. I wanted to -- (background noise). (indiscernible) -- I see the participation is indiscernible. If the secretariat could advise (indiscernible). Okay. Thank you. I wanted to enter a question and just emphasize that while I agree capacity of developing countries necessarily (indiscernible), I think it's very important to remind ourselves in this working group that the (indiscernible) is not conflicting and that (indiscernible) does exist in developing countries and that all (indiscernible). In other words, I think we have seen new leadership and new development from developing countries including India (indiscernible) policy issues. And I would (indiscernible) very strongly that developing countries are part of this and somehow should be (background noise) (indiscernible). I was thinking of the Human Rights Council with a notion on (indiscernible) -- >>CHAIR MAJOR: Joy, I'm sorry to interrupt you. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: The Human Rights Council has been (indiscernible). >>CHAIR MAJOR: We have technical problems. And I think if you can write it down, your contribution, in a brief way, probably the secretariat can read it out and we can take it into consideration. But I'm sorry, at this point in time, I think the technical problems just prevent us to follow what you're saying. So if you could do us the favor to go to the chat box and write down what you wish to say. Thank you. I think the next one was Carlos, I believe. No, sorry, sorry, Saudi Arabia. Sorry, sorry. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to everyone. In regards to Question 10 about the role of developing countries and how can it be more effective in the global Internet governance, as my intervention covered well by some of the previous speakers, however, the sequence of the questions that Number 10 came after the questions that we asked how enhanced cooperation could be implemented to enable governments. And then we said how can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their roles and responsibilities. And when answering this, and even looking at the report, there was many inputs that the missing of having a fora for countries and governments to sit and discuss these important issues in regards to the global Internet governance does not exist. And with Saudi Arabia, when we came to this question, we already stated the need to be a fora or a platform for governments to discuss these issues. And how can this be made more effective taking into consideration -- into consideration the establishment that this platform is through balanced equal footing participation through all countries. However, in regards to the international Internet public policy issues, Question 15, that are of special relevance to developing countries, I can list some which is a very important such as multilingualization. This includes the local language content search engines and multilingual e-mail. International Internet connectivity, this includes affordability, Internet exchange points, and differences in the cost of carrying traffic. IPv6 transition, most developing countries have limited fixed line infrastructures, and communications is primarily through wireless technologies. IPv6 is much better suited to mobility than IPv4. And as has been stated, contributions to capacity-building for Internet governance, this includes financing, training, and support. Developing countries must be involved in the development of public policy and must be able to present their interests in the evolution of the Internet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. I can see Carlos, Marilyn, and I think after this we are going to break and we come back after the coffee break. It's 11:45, and we may continue the discussions on this issue. Carlos, please. >>CARLOS AFONSO: Just basically to complement what Benedicto said besides the example of this issue of gTLDs and the (indiscernible) of discussing the developing issues, et cetera, there's another example which is the famous cybercrime convention of Budapest in which some developed countries got together, drafted a convention (indiscernible) and then came to us, developing countries, and said look, why don't you sign it? You should sign it. It's a great convention. And we replied no, we didn't -- we don't sign. Why? Because we did not participate in the discussions. Where are the -- where is the equal footing, you know, that we all keep raging about. So these are examples of practices that we have to try and avoid, and really in the convention the question of subsets, developing countries being subsets, I don't think we are subsets. We have to be equals. And the governments of developed countries must, you know, act on an equal footing with us, if they want our participation, those initiatives and structures, et cetera. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Carlos. Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Before I go on to make a statement about Question 10, I want to respond to the comment about that particular workshop and a couple of other workshops that are like it. I was, too, fairly disappointed in what I thought came across as a -- what I -- I'm from business, we call that mar com, marketing communications. I didn't like it at all. I didn't think it was within the spirit of what we should have been planning for a particular workshop. And particularly not with a title that it belonged in. However, the Baku IGF overall was filled with rich and interesting issues and workshops and we met in a country in a particularly geographic sub-space that we had never been to before in the IGF. So I just wanted to not lose sight of the -- and to note that as the ambassador said, he was focused on a particular workshop, and I really share the concerns that he expressed. But I want to go on to say that I think it's actually fair to say that within the IGF we are still working hard on how to thoroughly incorporate the development discussions into the IGF, that that is very much a work in progress. We made progress, but I want to just say I think we can do more. And when we talk later about mechanisms, I will probably say more. Now I'd like to make a comment about I'm obviously not from a developing country. I live in the United States, or on united.com. I'm not sure which it is. Most of you know that I travel a great deal. I go to many, many different countries and I -- I also teach a course that is a survey course that is attended only by citizens from developing countries, that is focused on cybersecurity, the use of ICT's and disaster remediation, and Internet governance. The course attendees range from system administrators to managers in telecom companies and IPs to regulators to boards of regulatory authorities to people who work for ministries. And in the survey course what I talk about is the Internet governance ecosystem. And I talk about how to get involved in the GAC and how to get involved in the IGF and how to learn about whether there is a national or regional IGF in your country or region and if you're not engaged already, who to reach out to to become involved. I have never had any of the students, the attendees -- there are usually about 22 to 24 -- I have never had a single one of them say I don't want to go to an ICANN meeting. I don't want to go to a national IGF. Instead, they say how can I get involved? How do I find the resources? How do I get my management, whether it's private sector or government, how do I get them to understand the importance of Internet governance and why it's important to decisions we're making about our country. So now I'm going to use an analogy. In the days of the narrow band Internet when we coined the words "E-commerce" that was only talked about in very specialized places. Today much of commerce is online in one way or another. We talk about the implications of the online world and about doing business online in a widely distributed number of places. I think for myself that what we need to focus on is strengthening and deepening the awareness about what Internet governance policies are and how you need to participate, both at a national level and to strengthen -- now, some in the room may still at the end of the day think that there is a need for a separate and new. But I hope we don't lose sight of the importance of definitely strengthening and deepening the mechanisms we have now. I'm going to go back to a comment made by Barat (saying name). We need to find more mechanisms to provide initial funding to bring participants from all stakeholder groups, including business from developing countries, into these mechanisms. We can't stop by saying there is no money. My experience is once an NGO or civil society or business or government comes to a couple of meetings, they become much better able to justify the participation and to articulate the value to their management stream. And after a couple of meetings, they're able to then become an ongoing participant and they're also much more able to use online participation when they have a network of colleagues to relate to. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. I promised you that we are going to have coffee break, but I also promised yesterday that we are going to have a segment for observers. Now it is your time. So if you have some comments to give, please do. >>MATTHEW SHEARS: Thank you, Chair. And good morning. Matthew Shears with CTD. Just two very quick points. With regards to the comments that are in the summary document and the comments that have been inputted by participants to this process, speaking as a representative of civil society, there are a significant number and a great diversity of views coming from civil society that have been inputted into this process. Many of those organizations that have submitted comments are from developing countries, or represent developing country interests. And I would like to suggest that many of those views do not recommend, do not suggest that moving to a global mechanism is necessarily the way that is going to particularly solve the issues that developing countries have in dealing with public policy and public policy issues at the international level. So I think it's -- it's a leap, if you will, certainly from civil society inputs to go from a concern about developing country interests at international level to a global mechanism. And I would recommend that people look again at some of those inputs. I'd like to also very firmly agree with the Brazilian ambassador. This is very much an issue of information sharing. I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to agree with a need for a platform, but certainly there are information sharing platforms that are under development and one is the European Union's new platform that they are establishing for global Internet policy observatory which I suggest the -- the aim of that is very much what we've been talking about, the need to provide information -- on organizations to provide policy information and to share information globally. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. India, I can see you want to take the floor. Let me ask for your indulgence and let's come back and I'll give the floor -- you will be the first after coffee break. So we are going to have a coffee break, up to 50, 10 to 12:00 and come back. [ Break ] [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Welcome back. You have copies here on the table. Another thing, we had Joy -- Joy to intervene and we had technical problems. So I'm told by the Secretariat -- [ Gavel ] Can I have your attention, please? Thank you. I'm told that the technical problems have been resolved for the remote participation so I suggest you listen to Joy Liddicoat. Joy, the floor is yours. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me? >>CHAIR MAJOR: We can hear you. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. I wanted to make a point in relation to the last discussion. In particular to emphasize that while it's important to acknowledge the concerns about capacity building for developing countries, and certainly on the (indiscernible). I think it's also very important that this working group acknowledges that developing countries do have many capacities so leadership and a variety of (indiscernible) that are critically needed, not only in relation to the Internet governance fora itself but also in other areas such as in the Human Rights Council, (indiscernible) and leading discussion of the relation of the same human rights as offline as online and I would be very consumed if there was any suggestion in the summary from this meeting which inquired that also civil society from developing countries are of the view that new mechanisms are needed to deal with the variety of -- some variety of issues on the discussion. Often civil society in developing countries provides barriers to existing mechanisms and assume a new mechanism would pose more difficulties. So I think I want to emphasize that point and think more discussion about the particular issues which I believe the changing needs and the mechanism exercise is specific issues which are not adequately covered by existing mechanisms and to understand those issues. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. Before the coffee break I promised India, and I always keep my promises. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. Quickly just a small clarification. I think Carlos had referred to subset and the context in which I was mentioning was that the global Internet public policy issues which we will discuss, those are relevant to the developing countries with a subset of that and not the countries a subset of anyone else. So thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I think the point is well-taken. Grace, you wanted to take the floor? Okay, please go ahead. >>GRACE GITHAIGA: Thank you, Chair. In the morning during my contribution I did point out that one way of dealing with this issue of making countries participate in Internet governance would be to have a distributed structure of Internet governance that is well-defined within said processes and then, you know, in a way it will make developing countries know which processes are worth their time. I want to note a number of questionnaire responses emphasized a value of a distributed approach to policy-making. And I think this is very consistent with the assumption that different policy issues may imply different mechanisms and that actors who should be involved -- and which actors should be involved in related policy divisions. So my suggestion is before we start thinking of establishing a new platform, as has been suggested, I think we need to map what the issues are, whether they're being addressed now, whether this is adequate, and whether we need new mechanisms to address them. And I think this is an exercise we started yesterday by compiling a list of issues mentioned in response to Question 4 and my suggestion is that we continue with this process. And lastly, it would be important for us not to forget that the IGF has been central platform to addressing Internet-related public policy issues, which is truly inclusive in multistakeholder. So before we start building new structures, new mechanisms, perhaps it is time we thought of improving of how -- or how we can strengthen the IGF and what would be needed to implement this improvement as recommended by the previous CSTD working group. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Grace. It is my understanding that the IGF has made a great progress in this aspect and it's trying to implement the recommendations of the previous working group. Just let me remind you of one of the main recommendations, that is IGF should discuss policy issues in its program and that's actually what has happened during the Bali meeting. There were policy questions which were discussed, and I think the output will be made available to all those who are interested and naturally, including governments, all stakeholders will benefit from this. I can see Japan, Brazil, Ellen, Virat. So Japan, please. >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As other colleagues pointed out in the morning session, in order to increase the participation of developing countries in the global Internet governance, I think it is very effective to consider under implemented the measures to enable the developing countries to attend the existing international fora dealing with the Internet-related public policy issues such as IGF and to utilize (indiscernible) fora effectively, sufficiently. For example, raising awareness, information sharing, and enhancing remote participation. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Japan. Talking about remote participation, we have one request but I'm not sure if Avri is -- would like to take the floor. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Can I be heard? Yes. I hadn't actually requested the floor, but since I had got it, I had sent a note and basically at that time I was very much (indiscernible) with what Matthew Shears had said and wanted to indicate that civil society from developing regions has its own voice and that voice is conflicted with the new favor of multistakeholder mechanisms, the multistakeholder mechanisms that are existing with perhaps a single or a few other exceptions. And until such time as we concentrate on remote participation that meets current standards, it will be really difficult for these existing mechanisms to reach their full fruition and for people to actually participate in those venues. The technology does exist for supported, very full remote participation, but we need the (indiscernible) and perhaps the financing to make sure that those things exist. The idea that -- of creation of new structures would help. It's really difficult to understand, as those who present us with new opportunities, for difficulties in participation. We really need to focus on the (indiscernible) we have, especially the IGF, and strengthen them as opposed to dissipating our energy, which is small, in new directions. So I'm really entreating us to really focus on strengthening what we have and truly focusing on making sure that remote participation is really a method of participation for people from developing regions of all sorts. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. I think your intervention was a good example that remote participation is working indeed. I can see Brazil and then I -- Ellen, you wanted to take the floor, Virat, and Jimson. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I took the floor to complement what was pointed out by Carlos Afonso in which the Budapest convention also provided an example of the need to involve developing countries' participation from the start. He mentioned an important point for us, principle that we follow that usually we do not adhere to an instrument in which we did not participate. But this is not an absolute in itself. Otherwise, we would not adhere to any organization and be global -- regional in which we were not in the initial group. So this is something that we could be flexible about it. But there is a practical reason why we want to be involved in -- especially in global negotiations, because others make sure that the outcomes will be in line also and will be acceptable for us according to our constitutional legal requirements and this is not the case at this convention. As it is now, it would require from us and others to change national legislation. Which is something we might do in case there is national consensus for that, but this is to indicate the need to fully involve in global negotiations some aspects because otherwise we might be found in a position in which we (indiscernible) at the Budapest convention. We see a lot of (indiscernible) in its purpose in the instruments that we are -- it is difficult for us from the point of view that this would entail internal changes that we are not prepared for the moment to make. And this leads me to indicate and to reinforce the need for developing countries' participation at large, to make sure that the -- and I repeat, the agenda (indiscernible) from the beginning will address also developing countries' concern. And if we think that one of our overall objectives regarding this review, 10-year review, we think largely in terms of outcomes, is that we want to make some substantial input for the millennium development goals follow-up. So I think we should give very serious consideration to mechanisms and ways we can collectively devise to enhance participation because otherwise the input that will come maybe will not correctly address developing countries' participation. And this is one point. And I'm also prompted by the comments that was made by Ms. Grace, I'd say we fully concur with this vision. I'd just like to read out one part, small part of our contribution in which we say, "The discussion of any new suitable framework or mechanisms must be preceded by the assessment of those current arrangements." So that is why we think the mapping is a very -- is a prerequisite to discussion. We need to know what is there, what is on the table, so we can provide for some intervention on what exists and if there are any -- and the second part says, "The discussion of any suitable framework or mechanisms should be guided by the purpose of addressing perceived needs or filling gaps." And to that end, Brazil proposes first to deepen discussion on what we want before discussing how to achieve what we want. So we -- we really think we need some good information. I think this -- we thank the group that prepared this initial work on the mapping. I think maybe we'll adjust this later on, Mr. Chair, but I think this is a good way forward in providing us with more good information which we can build upon. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. India, this is my intention, that we shall briefly discuss the paper because of the indications of this paper are much greater than to be discussed in a very short time. But before doing that, probably we proceed with the discussion we are having right now. So it is Ellen who asked for the floor followed by Virat and then Jimson and Marilyn. Ellen, please. >>ELLEN BLACKLER: Thank you. This is Ellen Blackler. I'm one of the business representatives from The Walt Disney Company. I wanted to add something to the discussion so that we continue to be aware of the less formal ways that the community moves to address issues of concern raised by developing countries. Over the past year or two for the discussion at the IGF and other forums, as well as empirical research documenting the availability of content to driving adoption, we and others have put a focus on how to create an environment that encourages locally-relevant content creation. By way of example, at the IGF for the first time there was several sessions on encouraging locally-relevant content that were well attended by participants from developing countries. I attended two sessions, one organized by Google and one organized by Disney and UNESCO, that shared specific best practices in areas that are necessary to develop a robust content creation environment. The panels addressed a range of issues from developing local hosting capabilities to creating sustainable business models for content creators and other efforts such as the partnership we've developed with the Bandung University in Indonesia to encourage an app development industry by creating a prize contest for a locally-developed app. Attendees at these sessions were engaged and I hope came away with some helpful ideas and information. All of that is an -- activity is an organic response to this concern that we've heard about the need for local content development. And I'd like us to keep in mind the important role of that kind of activity when we talk about ways to address these issues. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ellen. Virat, you asked for the floor. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to endorse the point made very strongly by the honorable delegate from Brazil about the fact that we need to carefully evaluate first the issues at hand and find out whether there is an existing mechanism to resolve those issues and whether there is an existing home for those. The working group has prepared the list that was circulated earlier and has about 465 word issues listed in what is lovingly called the laundry list. But I can assure you that after we've taken away the duplicates you will still have about 100-plus issues left there. This is based on the estimates that we did yesterday. It is also important to note that apart from existing homes that might be available by way of existing mechanisms, a large number of these issues are purely domestic, for national governments to resolve. For example, a deep discussion on access and how important that is and whether there is a role for global governments and global stakeholders or whether that's mostly a national issue will have to take place before we discuss the final set of outcomes and mechanisms that are available or need to be made available. So I suppose the task would include both evaluation of this list of issues, whether existing mechanisms and a division between national and global issues. And after that exercise has been completed, we can proceed to have discussions on the options. The last pass that I wish to submit, Mr. Chairman, is about the IGFs and the fact that the speaker on the -- on the remote participation spoke about technology, and we strongly endorse the fact that this is a group dealing with technology and Internet. We must find ways to ensure a higher level of participation, especially from the developing world in global events using technology because currently it would seem that the use of technology is a fraction of what is possible, if everybody put their minds to it. So whether it's a matter of cost or technology, I think that is an important area of focus. We should note, however, that to ensure participation from the developing worlds the IGFs have been held, including the next two, in the developing world so that cost of stay, travel, et cetera, are lesser than they would be if it was in a capital city of a developed country. So there are some efforts underway. More have to be made. But before we discuss the issue of mechanisms it would be important to allocate them into existing homes and domestic forces global. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Jimson, please. >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you. Thank you very much, Distinguished Chair, Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen. Well, I just also want to underscore this viewpoint who have been expressed before but to relate it to my own direct experience. First, as far as remote participation, it cannot be overemphasized, the need for us to get it right at every meeting. I recall the last IGF in Bali, well-organized and also I appreciate Chengetai and Steve and the government of Bali. I could not travel, but Baku and Abuja I could still contribute in my sessions, in the workshops. Though I have to wake up 1:30 a.m. until 5:00 a.m. in Abuja to be connected, but, you know, I was so happy. You know, with the webcast I saw everybody clearly. They could hear me. There is some little glitches here and there, but I could send my contribution and it was so beautiful. So we need to strengthen that. It's so important. And I will give that channel for developing nations, countries, for their voices to be heard. And really even in Africa, in our own organization, you know, that spans 12 countries in Africa, we meet every month and we use remote communication to move -- to move on, to communicate. I also want to recognize or say that really we have some group of people calls SMEs, small and medium enterprises, that generally need to be heard. There's no doubt, to be there physically is better than remote because now you can hear me clearly in this hall than breaking. So small businesses have challenges in terms of funding. It's not cheap. Virat said it. Many of us agree, it's not cheap. Must have a way or mechanism to enabling this sector of the voices to be heard. Many are willing to be around now, representatives but are not able to. For example, I have to sponsor myself to be here, and it's expensive. So we need to look at, you know, business financing for that. Then more investment in awareness, synergy, and collaboration. For collaboration is so important. Among all stakeholders for different organizations, countries, collaborating together. Even within the countries, collaborating together, creating more awareness so that we can have a grasp of what we have attained already, and that will help a great deal. So that just briefly what I want to add to the discussion on the ground. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson. Yes, I can confirm that remote participation has challenges and has costs. But this is probably the way forward to get more people on board. And I was really happy to be with you on the same panel, your being I don't know how many thousands of kilometers away. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Yeah, so I was trying to pass on to the mic to any potential speaker because my issue is a little different from the one under discussion. It came to mind because Virat was talking already about already dealing with the questions kind of thing. Since I have the mic, I will make my point. I think as we have this long list of issues, when we go through, it gives you a good mental map of what kind of things need to be dealt with. I remind that I and Marilyn were agreeing on some categories of issues which was like already being dealt somewhere. Second was being dealt with but not in a holistic matter in the sense of connecting with other Internet issues. And third was largely not being dealt with anywhere. And the fourth one which Marilyn added which is more of a trend, which is something in the future, and probably policy work is a great focus in that kind of thing. So once you start kind of bunching -- >>CHAIR MAJOR: Parminder, excuse me. We haven't closed the discussion on Group 4. We come back discussing the paper. I'm very sorry about that. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Yeah. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So if anyone would like to contribute to the questions in Group 4, then this is the time to do it. We have had very, very intensive discussion on that, very interesting one, and very constructive one with a lot of proposals, a lot of interesting ideas. And we have to continue to think about these proposals and how to synthesize them into a set of recommendations. So I'm really happy that this discussion has taken place from so diverse aspects and so diverse points of views. If you still want to contribute to that one, this is the time to do it. If not, then we can go to the discussion -- a short discussion of the document which I think will take us to the lunch break. And in the afternoon, after lunch break, I would like to continue with the questions in Group 5. Hopefully, we can finish with Group 5 during this afternoon. And as you know me, I'm always optimistic. But eventually tomorrow, we can start drafting some recommendations. And it seems to me that the best candidates for the recommendations are the questions we have discussed now. So even though there was a big discussion, I could feel a lot of convergence of ideas and a lot of convergences of recommendations. So, Marilyn, if you would like to comment on Group 4 -- No. So anyone on Group 4, questions, development issues? In that case, let me ask the members or one of the representatives of the voluntary task force to introduce this paper for the group. Any volunteer? Thank you, Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Well, I'm going to open my introduction by asking two people to please stand up, Lea and Sam. Please stand up. That's why you have this document. So can we start with a round of applause. [ Applause ] Now I'm going to try to explain it. When we spoke yesterday, we were taking Question 4 and doing a mapping exercise. And we had a number of categories that we proposed. So I agree with Virat. We have down the left-hand column the laundry list. Let me tell you where we got the laundry list. The team went into the submissions and pulled out every bullet and plugged them into this list. So there's a terrific amount of duplication, and we are going to talk about how to synthesize the duplication. But we felt it was important that you have a sense of the depth of the contributions in a single document. We added a column that's now called "draft categories, work in progress." And this is an effort to use your expertise and contribution to come up with a more homogenized list to go down from 400 and some duplicative into X number that are categories that everyone feels comfortable with. So the labels need to be descriptive enough that the submitters agree with them and that all of us understand what they mean. I'm going to give you an example. What you have in the draft categories is our effort to come up with labels or terms. Those aren't cast in concrete. The next category is called "consolidated groupings." That's where we want to plug in the actual headings or issues that the room agrees with. So let me pick an example. We -- if you look at Number 7, it's called "IPR." We would -- and it appears in several places. We would assume that IPR, or intellectual property rights may be spelled out, would be a common term that if everyone agreed every time we see IPR, we would put the discussion about that topic and we would accept IPR under "consolidated grouping." If you look at Number 1, the administrative of root zone files and system, we call that "critical Internet resources." The room might not think that that's granular enough. So you might decide you want to call it something else. All we're trying to do is give you a framework to build on. I will just say a very interesting thing, if you look -- if you glance at this, you can begin to see -- And we started out, Ambassador, we started out with the list from Brazil because it was in the document and then we added on from there. But if you go over to -- I'm just going to point to 117, 118, 121, 122, 133, 134, you're beginning to see as you keep going through the bullets the same phrases being repeated. So, obviously, our next step -- we did about a hundred. Our next step is to get rid of all the duplication and come up with the consolidated grouping list using terms everybody agrees with. The next step we talked about doing was to identify the current activities and approaches that are underway and then to Parminder's point, then have a conversation about I'm calling it the "how satisfied are we." And I think Parminder -- Parminder, these four categories, that's right now under a heading called "status" because we didn't really know what to call it. So you've got a document that we really need everyone to look at and to think about are you happy with the draft category labels that we provided to you to think about. Do you want to change some of them? And how do we do this quickly so that we can actually go ahead with the next step? But I don't think this small team is volunteering to do all of the work without more help. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. I would like also to thank all those who participated in establishing this list. And frankly speaking, the list is frightening. [ Laughter ] >>MARILYN CADE: I'm sorry, Chairman. I thought you meant exciting. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. It's really exciting and probably we have to calm down. And we need some time to think about. I don't assume that the horrendous task of merging and eliminating duplications is within our capacity right now. But we are probably -- it gives us a lot of thought for -- to think about in the upcoming days. I reiterate what I said in the morning, that this is a very good beginning to take stock what we have and what we called the mapping exercise. So probably this is a very good first step. But I would suggest that we might think about going further. As I said in the morning, I would like to ask the secretariat to provide this in one of the future meetings we have with some background document in this respect about the existing mechanisms and existing examples of enhanced cooperation. So I believe it will be extremely useful for this group. And it doesn't mean that we don't have to work on this document ourselves but probably not right now. You may take your time probably. You may like to consult with your colleagues back home as well. So it's really up to you. It is really your decision what we're going to do with this document. So any comment regarding the document itself? Parminder, please. And then Chris. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. I'll continue with the comments which I was making earlier. So I think we have a nice list here, and I agree with the categories as they are, including up to the status which is where we would be able to say whether we think they are being dealt with, they are being dealt with but not in a holistic manner, they have largely not been dealt with, and they are future trends which require a lot of policy work because the idea is that this is what -- and I agree with both the phrases, frightening and exciting but definitely enormous set of things which are needed to be done and which is the mandate of this group to figure out -- not to do it but to figure out the mechanism of what could start to do something about it, the mechanism and not addressing these issues. Therefore, from these issues we have to go towards mechanisms, which is our mandate. And I think the translation starts from the status which is the four categories we mentioned, and then also the categories which I tried yesterday which is the technical policies, oversight and public policies. Like, the one, administration of root zone file and system, it is either one or two in that case. And as Ambassador from Brazil said, these three categorizations already exist in the relevant sections of Tunis Agenda. They have very clearly said day-to-day operation is one side, principles related to CIRs is another thing, which is oversight, I understand, and other public policy issues is three. So they have that. So after the status, if we do that, we can then start entering what needs to be done under each category. And that's where our recommendations of whether we are satisfied, we think, you know, it should be done in a distributed manner, we need a new body, et cetera, comments can start coming. Last one even, role of stakeholders. I think from issues, therefore, the conversion into the real elements of our mandate would that way be possible. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. Chris Disspain. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Thank you. So thanks for asking about what we should do with this document. And I'd hate to see all this hard work go to waste. I think we should decide to move on, the way forward with this. And maybe the way forward is for a small group, sub working group if you'd like, to take this and move it down the line over the next few weeks. I wanted to support Virat's very clear point about a number of these issues are not actually global issues; they're national issues. So as part of the process of going -- I think the next step is to go through and look at duplicates. I think that's really important because obviously there is a heap of those. And then I think the next step after that is to say: Is it actually an issue relevant to this working group? Because if it's not an international global issue or for that matter an Internet governance issue, then it can go into a separate category. And then I think we can start to look at rating them and doing what Parminder was talking about. But I'd like to suggest that we do agree to have a small working group take charge of this document. I appreciate that the two or three people that have done this work so far can't do it on their own and we continue to work on the document. Thanks. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Chris. As far as eliminating duplicates, I think this is doable and it is relatively simple. As far as evaluating the relevance of some questions, I have my doubts that in a small group we can do that. Probably as the issues which have been raised came from contributions asked by the working group itself in the questionnaire. So probably those who contributed have thought about the relevance of the issues. So I don't believe that a small group may like to judge whether this is relevant or not. So probably we have to be very cautious about that. I have nothing against, however, setting up such a small working body -- shall we call it a working party, using the ITU terminology -- to do a kind of reduction of the number of issues we have, retaining everything -- I'm just talking about the duplications. I can see Virat asking for the floor. Sorry, sorry. India, you asked for the floor? Oh, Brazil. Oh, my goodness. We are approaching lunch break. I'm sorry. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I have some comments that were already covered by others. But one thing that occurs to me that has just been said, Mr. Chair, that it is doable towards having a more workable document, to eliminate duplication. I think that might be something more easily done. Just by looking at the pages, I identified eight references to multilingualism, either with a single word or multilingualism including internationalized domain names. So maybe we can retain both. But at least if we eliminate six, I think this would be the case in regard to other issues. So we may come up with a document with over 100 may be but more workable. And in regard to the small working group that would be tasked to further elaborate on this, I think that's probably the most efficient way to go about it. But I would also think that we would need this group to be open to contributions because since we are dealing with a universe of issues, I think expertise and inputs would be needed from various parties that would not necessarily be in this working group. And the most -- of course, the most burdensome issue would be to fill in current activities and approaches. I think the real challenge would be in regard to this column to identify exactly what are the current arrangements or what is being done in that regard. And we don't need to identify what interventions we might propose or agree to recommend or at least to identify. So I think this -- I don't have any idea of the amount of work, but I think it might require some extension of time that I think if we can aim at having this by our next meeting, that would be, I think, maybe a big challenge enough for the working group to work around this. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. Probably you don't need my advice of how to eliminate duplicates. Probably a simple sort on the Column 2 of this issue list will do and it will help. And then we can proceed on that. So I can sense that to establish a small working party may be agreed upon by this group. So probably you would like to think about how you would like to establish this working party which will be naturally open to anyone who'd like to participate from this group. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. Quickly, first of all, we wish to place on record our sincere appreciation to our colleagues led by Marilyn for coming up with this list which, I guess, is largely based on the contributions that we have. I think it is a very good basis to start with, though there are duplications, and I'm sure there are a few things which we need to look at. At the same time, the recognition that we could have at this point in time is if there are more additions to be made by any of the members of the working group, you could, perhaps, set a particular time frame during the course of the day by which time then there is a more acceptable list of issues. I'm not saying everyone agrees to what's in here but at least if there are any new areas, which the small group or the larger group would look at it subsequently. And, again, with the clear provision that you could at any time if any member wants to add a new issue to be added, the flexibility exists. With that understanding starting to begin with, we have the issues settled to begin with. And the second step would be, I think, on the lines of categorization of these issues. The two approaches I think as we heard, one approach could be on the lines which we already have -- where we have mentioned in our contribution that the last working group on Internet governance did classify them into four categories. Perhaps if that is one basis or possibility, yeah, if you want to add one more -- there are four listed here. One can be there. And, thereafter, the other suggestion was to look at just what Parminder has summarized based on what earlier I think were his discussions with Marilyn. So perhaps that initial kind of determination could be made in the larger group on categorization. And then the smaller group would be tasked with the responsibility to place them in different groups and then thereafter come in the larger group to see the next steps. I think that could be perhaps a logical way to go about as we see it. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. I think this is a good way of moving forward. I think the voluntary task force was looking at the contributions, took the input from the contributions but nothing prevents us to give additional items. However, I caution ourselves as far as the extent of expanding. We have constraints, meaning that we have to come up with recommendations according to a mandate for the next session of the CSTD which would be May. That is, we have to finish our work by end of February, beginning of March. We have to be aware, also, we shall do our best but it is not going to perfect. We have to make some compromises. So there's always room for improvement, I understand. There's always a possibility of taking up new things, but I caution you to be very, very careful how we are going to proceed. As for the categories you suggested, I think this is a good way forward. It is the bigger group, that is the whole working group, which may establish the categories. And probably the working party we are going to create can work on the basis of that; that is, eliminating duplication and putting the issues into the categories or putting categories to the issues, whatever way you would like to put it. Any other intervention? Virat? >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So just trying to consolidate some of the points and clarifying them. So the step one, I suppose, we're moving towards clearing the duplicates because we've got to come down from this list of 460. Step two, I think a determination would have to be made about whether the issues that have been mentioned here fall under the overall ambit of Internet governance and lend themselves to the dialogue on enhanced cooperation. That's a key threshold through which the issues must enter the door for consideration for this group and its mandate. The third would be whether these are national governments and domestic issues or whether they lend themselves to a global dialogue and a global discussion or policy making as some of my colleagues have called it. The fourth step would be to classify them as -- I think the Indian delegate mentioned about the working group on IGF improvements. But I suppose it's WGIG that he might be mentioning. The four classifications are in the WGIG document. I suppose it is that document, unless I'm wrong. Then there is the WGIG document versus the formula that has just been sort of offered by Parminder here. And the last would then be to sort of qualify it as whether there is an existing home, whether the existing home or mechanism is doing sufficient work, and whether there is nothing currently available and, therefore, something needs to be found on a way to handle it. It could be about five steps. I would say one -- I would just make one submission that whatever the smaller group does should be submitted on a no-judgment basis as a preliminary report to the entire group so that they're able to requalify an issue if they believe that needs to be mentioned separately and doesn't fall under the duplication because the smaller group, as you have mentioned, may not be sort of entirely authorized to strike off an issue as already exists. So I think we should provide that, maybe a week or a ten-day opportunity, to everybody to look at that list in case they absolutely insist that their issue has not been included. And that would be immediately after step one, which is when we clear out duplicates. So I submit a five-stage process could be followed and the Brazilian Ambassador's point that we should have this by the next meeting so we could have a sensible sort of time period in which we can conclude this exercise. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I think we are getting there. If there's no one from the group who'd like to take the floor, I would call on the observer. >>LEA KASPAR: Thank you, Chair. Lea Kaspar for Global Partners. I was one of the people working on the document. And I just wanted to say that perhaps it might be helpful to note that if the group would find this useful, we can just delete the duplicates today and have that ready by tomorrow so we can just go on to the second step as was noted now. So just I want to offer my time to do that if the group would find it useful. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Definitely I find it useful if you deleted the duplicates. As for the continuation of the work, I would like to think about how we are going to proceed. It's very tempting to work on this document. However, we shouldn't lose sight of our main task. So what I suggest now to have our lunch break and let's discuss it after lunch, consider what we are going to do and how we are going to do. Before breaking for lunch, Joy wanted to take the floor. Joy? >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize for keeping people from their well-deserved lunch break. Just one suggestion to assist the smaller working group. I notice that a number of people offered to assist in preparing the document, and there are one or two people who are indicating they might like to also contribute to this task. And I am just wanting to make sure that would be possible, for example, Anja Kovacs from (indiscernible) Project, who wishes to assist. And if there are any others, I think that would be a useful contribution. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. I'm going to consider it. Thank you. And now I think we are going to break for lunch and we come back at 3:00. Thank you. [ Lunch break ] [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good afternoon, welcome back. You look fresh. You had a nice lunch and the weather is beautiful outside. I imagine you would have liked to walk down to the lake. Can I ask you to take your seats, please? Shall I sing something? [ Speaking non-English language ] [ Laughter ] Okay, I would like to start now. I would like to the Swiss delegation to take their seat. Thank you. Okay. So before lunch break there were a lot of things going on. First of all, we discussed the questions in Group 4. We had a very, very good discussion on that. I'm really happy to have all of these ideas confronted. And we had the short presentation of a very good paper containing a few issues, if I'm not mistaken there are over 480 issues. And we agreed that there would be additional work done on this paper and eliminate duplicates. I was promised to have this paper by tomorrow and eventually tomorrow morning we may start some kind of relatively short discussion on this paper. What I suggest now to do is to attack the questions in Group 5. And I hope to finish it by 6:00. Leisurely we're going to take a coffee break at around half past 5:00. There's one thing I want to ask you if you have any comments on the discussions we had this morning or any observation concerning the way we are proceeding. If there are no comments, I would like to add once again that my target is to start drafting some recommendations tomorrow. There are a lot of issues which I -- I think that we may agree on, there would be a consensus, or close to consensus, and I want to repeat that this is a drafting exercise. It is not a final recommendation. We are just drafting something we can build on for the next meeting. But I find it extremely important that the -- at the end of this meeting we already have some things to build on for the next meeting, which I still don't know and it very much depends on you, how you feel it. It may be one or two meetings next year. I'm inclined to think that we may need to have two meetings, but it's up to you to decide. Okay. So I suggest to go into the Group 5 and look through the questions pertaining to this group. I -- as usual, I'll give you about five minutes to go through and to concentrate and I'm expecting your comments after that. [ Break ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. So I think you had some time to review the questions in the Group 5 which is about barriers for participation and enhanced cooperation which is very close to what's been discussed previously. So I invite you to give your comments. So who would like to take the floor first? Yes, Grace. >>GRACE GITHAIGA: I would like to just articulate some of the points that APC had raised but then, you know, they say they are the reflections of -- the comments are not reflected. And I just want to say some of them that in the barriers they highlight the absence of common principles for Internet governance at substantive and procedural levels. There's also not even a common understanding what the Internet is from an economic or legal perspective. The second barrier is the geopolitical arrangements among states, and interventions by states and global policy processes appear to be aimed at protecting the specific business or political interests rather than reflect a broader mandate from all their citizens. There's also an equal distribution of power among governments in global Internet governance basis. Some are simply more powerful than others. And often positions are shaped by this powerful configurations rather than by a desire to achieve the best possible public interest outcomes. There's also limited financial resources, time, capacity, and knowledge operate as barriers for the participation of the Internet governance ecosystem by civil society, by small- and medium-sized business, and governments from developing countries. And then, of course, there's also the barrier of diversity, different political and cultural backgrounds and traditions, different understandings about the role of governments and different approaches by governments to inclusive policy processes. In terms of actions required, one of the main things is that there needs to be more work with marginalized communities for us to develop local content in all languages that meets the needs and tells the stories of these marginalized communities. In terms of how EC can address issues to a broader socioeconomic development, one of the key factors is that it should ensure that stakeholders from all sectors reach agreement on a common vision and go through ICT support and socioeconomic development and by respecting that they can contribute to meeting these goals. It is also important to manage conflicts of interests and put human rights and public interests first. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Grace. Any other comments? Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Just on the (indiscernible) of the group, since nobody else is commenting, I will talk to keep the discussion rolling. Two small points. One is that it was pointed out earlier, I think by the Indian delegation, that though we are talking about participation discretion is linked to the question of mechanisms because many of us think the basic barrier is a fact that there is no peer mechanism on which policymaking development takes place and that itself is a barrier. And if we have a mechanism, then you will have different kind of barriers. But a big barrier right now is an absence of a mechanism. Second, because there are a couple of issues, a couple of questions under this set like the affordability question. In an effort to what a lot of you have said, that one of the (indiscernible) which should be applied to the issues is whether their relevant to our mandate, which is international public policymaking, and whether they are national level issues. So I would think that in our discussion we should focus on the international public policy aspects. I do think even access and local content may have an international aspect, but we as a mandate of the group are discussing international public policy issues and that (indiscernible) should be applied when we get into these questions to make the most productive use of our time. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. I think I just want to comment on your last point, which I think is a valid point. We have formulated questions, we have received the input, and that is part of our mandate. But it's up to us to decide upon whatever we take on board and whatever we think is not so relevant to our mandate. And we can naturally contribute ourselves. So we ask the (indiscernible) to contribute in forms of recommendations based on the inputs we have. But naturally, we can -- we should do our homework. So any other comments? Jimson, thank you. >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you very much, Distinguished Chair. When it comes to Baher (phonetic), I just look back that now I'm involved and there are still many stakeholders that still need to be involved in the process. Thus far. And one of, I think, the finest new job (indiscernible) is gap in internal processes, even at the national level. Also regional level and then international level. There's no doubt about that. When it comes to national level I can recall when we are talking about dot NG Nigeria there were a lot of issues. There was no understanding among the stakeholders, but until the government took the leadership role and brought in everybody, that was when there was peace, there was harmony. We are now working together. I now have the privilege of being a part of ICANN, basically playing at least some very -- I appreciate the leadership there. Some very neutral positions there, roles there. And that is business. The Government Advisory Committee too, at least from my experience from African perspective, awareness is a challenge because many government are not even aware that it could be involved in decision-making when it comes to the critical Internet, you know, resources. Talking about the ccTLD and the new gTLD and even the other issues that (indiscernible). But also this was a lot of language, you know. We have language barrier. Like Africa with more than 4,000 languages and 3,000 -- more than 3,000 ethnic groups, so it was also challenges. Before you get information to the grass-roots it takes a little while. So more information, the challenge of submitting information, and also bringing people together. And also funding to do this campaign. I think that we also see an important job to do here, to develop some good funding to proper awareness, even down to the grass root. Because they are not aware, they don't know what they need to do, you know. And this is very, very important. Then at the international level, well, it's an evolution. The process is ongoing. And I'm optimistic that by the time we're able to use the bottom-up approach we need to be clear what we need to do at the international level. But basically, the challenge is getting the home together. They say charity begins at home. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson. One comment I can make is about the GAC and the ICANN, as far as I know, right, there are about 120-plus governments who are members of the Advisory Committee, Governmental Advisory Committee, but you have a point here that naturally out of this 120-plus countries, only about 60-plus who are actively participating or physically participating in the meetings. But I think there is a progress there as well. And all the points you pointed out are extremely variable and we should concentrate on these points. Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Something that Jimson said really sparked -- and Grace's comments really sparked my interest in commenting on the aspect of informed awareness. And informed participation and how much more we need to do to explain the relevance of Internet governance to the decisions that affect the use and the usability and the availability of the Internet and the online world. We often use the word "internet" as a code word when we actually probably mean the World Wide Web, social networks, all of the rich sources of stored data as well as the Internet which connects those together. And I think one thing when we start thinking about where's work being done, we may actually find ourselves needing to parse that a little bit more to think about whether we're talking about online content or we're talking about transport. But in terms of thinking about awareness, I think explaining in more citizen-friendly language what we would say in business is layman's language, but citizen-friendly language what is going on in Internet governance that is a policy or a decision that may affect legislation or it may affect a regulatory change or it may affect an initiative that your government is going to be taking. If citizens are reading in the local media or seeing -- I was privileged to be invited to speak at AfICTS summit in July in Lagos and spent a fair amount of time talking to the Nigerian press about what Internet governance is and why it matters on a global basis. Because they were looking at it -- they were very interested in why AfICTA would be engaging in global activities as well as -- and why they would be engaging and working with the Nigerian government to focus on policies that the Nigerian government was addressing. So I'd like to put my vote with, I think, both Grace and Jimson and others about the need for us to think about the importance of lack of awareness as a major barrier to how stakeholders can learn about the activities and how they can participate. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. Raising awareness is the expression I hear most. Saudi Arabia. Majed. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a -- a very good and important question in regards to the barriers, for all stakeholders to fully participate in their respective roles in global Internet governance. Among the various stakeholders groups identified in Tunis Agenda, we believe that it's only the governments who are unable to participate in their role in Internet governance. As I stated earlier, there is no effective mechanisms for them to undertake that role, which is the development of international Internet-related public policy in consultation with all stakeholders. Enhanced cooperation was intended to provide this mechanism and the process toward the implementation of enhanced cooperation was to begin by first quarter of 2006. However, governments supporting implementation of the WSIS outcomes have reached the point of creating this group and its mandate as it's stated in the UNGA resolution. The purpose is to make recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate of the WSIS regarding enhanced cooperation as contained in the Tunis Agenda. In regards to the other questions, how can enhanced cooperation address the issues toward global social and economical -- or economic development, bring us back to -- I mean, the creation of this mechanism -- and this relates to Question 6 is how to implement enhanced cooperation. We proposed that to establish a body, regardless it's a new body or under the U.N. system umbrella, and the enhanced cooperation body is a body and its related process mandate to (indiscernible) international public policy pertaining to the Internet. The processes will address the details of how issues are introduced, studied in consultation with all stakeholders, debated, agreed, disseminated, adopted, and implemented. But the first is to establish the body. Or to provide the platform for the government. As I stated, in the U.N. family funding, Secretariat support, high-level processes, these details will follow. But first we have to provide this platform. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Virat, please. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chairman, just a clarification. There are four questions here. Are we going one by one or can we go for all? How do you want to proceed? >>CHAIR MAJOR: As you wish. I would like to take the whole group together, and if you want to spec -- treat questions specifically, feel free to do it. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question I wanted to remind myself, Mr. Chairman, is about barriers that remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in the representative roles in global Internet governance. This is not specifically about enhanced cooperation. So I just want to be sure that we sort of attack that question. And I would argue, based on the comments that have been received from 60-odd bodies, that it would seem that governments and business have most access to information, activities, and events related to Internet governance. I would also argue, based on the evidence here, that the technical communities have perhaps the second best access and the civil society and academia easily the least access. I would quote, with your permission, from the submissions of Anja Kovacs for the project director for Internet Democracy who seeks distributed Internet governance process where she lists two specific reasons why civil society specifically is unable to participate. The first being procedural matter where much of the events that is organized are very last-minute and in developing countries and so information, availability, et cetera, is a challenge for civil societies, except those who are the regular players in this arena. The second that she lists here, and correctly so, and this seems to be affecting more than just the civil society, is the issue of funding. Since we have not explored technology to its fullest extent, I think the point of funding is coming in the way of making our processes multistakeholder and certainly becoming one of the most significant barriers that are listed here. I would also quote from the inputs provided by the United States where they have proposed solutions, including outline clear modalities with the default being the civil society can attend and participate on an equal footing with other stakeholders, provide advance notice -- meetings for notice -- notices for meetings, make available travel fellowships, publish all relevant material with no passwords, et cetera, and more participation. So I think excellent suggestions here from the inputs which we've included which I urge that the house consider as we respond to this question. I now turn to the second question in the group of four which relates to how can enhanced cooperation address the key issues towards global social and economic development and here I quote from the India submission from the government -- sorry, it's a submission from another civil society from India, SFLC, which talks about the fact that infrastructure can play a major role in bridging this divide and any discussion or decision that allows for all stakeholders to act together in a covenant manner nationally will then become an example for what can be done globally. I think sort of evidence has been provided here. On the third question that we're dealing with relating to what actions are needed to promote effective participation of all marginalized people in the global information society I again turn to the government of India -- sorry, the Indian submission by SFLC which states, and I quote, "that an established need to identify areas where further efforts and resources need to be pooled for the marginalized community. Firstly, affordable access to information and communications technology, digital literacy, for the rural poor and other marginalized groups, including women and children, should be assured." Much of what has been spoken by my colleague Jim here. And I think a very special effort. But this, to a very large extent, is about providing physical access and multilingualism. In a country like India, for example, we have 22 recognized languages. There's a dialect almost every 20 kilometers and hundreds of mother tongues. The rupee note carries 15 different scripts of how the rupee can be mentioned. So it's -- you know, we're rich in diversity in that sense. And so if it was taken as a microcosm of what the issue is globally, I think we have a good example to start. I come to the last question, with your permission, Mr. Chair, and what are the key issues to be addressed to promote affordability of Internet in particular developing countries and the least-developing countries, and here again, the multistakeholder role of all the parties is critical. Private sector, as we have often spoken about for the last day and a half about investment, innovation, technology, human resources, infrastructure, et cetera, capital, the technical community, which is working very hard across the world to lower the cost of access, 85 to 90% of the remaining world, 60% of the unconnected world will connect on mobile devices. Prices of mobile devices are being dropped sharply across the world with innovation and help from the technical community, so they have a significant role also to stretch the limits of spectrum and what it can do with regards to data because the facility that provides with regards to voice are quite different than data and online access, civil society which drives transparency, which drives accountability, and strives for lower cost. So if you look at this holistically, even in this role of providing access to developing countries and least developed countries, each one of them has a role. I will close by saying that the government in India, just as an example, has made a decision about two years ago to transform a universal service obligation fund which was collected from a 5% of every mobile bill that was paid by a mobile subscriber and was originally reserved for connecting rural India has been changed and the law has been changed with an agreement of all parties to the parliament. And now $4.5 billion are being deployed to build a national fiberoptic network that will soon connect 250,000 villages purely for online access for the most part. So this is a remarkable case where consumers using mobile phones have deposited money in an account which is now being used to provide rural access. And so each one of those stakeholders I have just highlighted have a role in providing access especially with developed and underdeveloped countries. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Two comments. I wouldn't call India a microcosm with 1 billion plus people. The second comment is when you mentioned "spectrum," did you mean frequency spectrum? >>INDIA: Yes. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chair. Well, we -- I would like to start with saying that we do think that there are barriers left that we have to deal with when it comes to participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance. And some of them have already been touched upon like the financial restraints, lack of awareness and not at least the issue of language, multilingualism. Those are definitely restraints that affect participation of all stakeholders, I would say, but maybe particularly civil society, academia and technical community. We also think that another barrier is the lack of policy transparency that still exists on many levels, both nationally and internationally. There is often a lack of consultation with stakeholders before new policy is put in place, legislation is put in place. And that is definitely a challenge for many stakeholders. In the international arena, we see this as well. Just to take an example, documentation in some international organizations like the ITU, for instance, is only for members. My government has certainly pushed this issue on many occasions, that we want to increase access to relevant documentation to all stakeholders. So that is -- that is another issue. I think when we're looking at Question 12 about marginalized people and how marginalized people can be more -- can participate more in the global information society, we think that that is part of much broader issues, empowerment issues. For example, we have the question of gender equality which is very important. We know that women today are to a lesser extent users of Internet, for instance. So I think that's part of a broader issue of trying to empower citizens and empower stakeholders. When it comes to the issue of affordability, we certainly think that it's very important to create an enabling business environment through deregulation, predictable business environment and definitely fostering competition because we know from experience that competition brings down prices. So we hope that we can work on some of the -- some recommendations that points in that direction. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. I think we are on the right track. We are working towards recommendations. I can see Baher. You wanted to take the floor? >>BAHER ESMAT: Thank you, Chair. I'm Baher Esmat. I'm with ICANN. So I echo the views of colleagues about -- on the question of barriers, about raising awareness and funding as key barriers for participation in Internet governance, particularly from developing countries. I also echo the views about language, language barriers. Marilyn made a valid point about making information available in laymen language for the broader participation. One of the -- one other related issue we noticed in our engagement at ICANN and developing countries is the relevance of the issue itself. And it was mentioned by the distinguished delegate from Brazil, you know, the example of, you know, the session at the IGF about developing issues and, you know, the new gTLD issue and whether it's relevant or not. So the relevance of the agenda itself is quite an issue. And that's why I'm not in agreement with the view that the lack of a mechanism or the lack of mechanisms is the main barrier because oftentimes we have mechanisms in place. But the issue is more about whether the issues and discussions are relevant or not. At the same time, there are key governance issues for developing countries that are mainly national issues. They need to be addressed mainly at national issues like access. Many of the contributions to the questionnaire recognized that access remains to be a key issue for developing countries. And I would say that 99% of policy discussions about access, whether in terms of broadband access or availability of content in local languages, all these policies are more relevant to the national sort of governance dialogue. So I think it's more -- the other point I want to raise is, again, in relation to access and in relation to the question about the social and economic aspects of enhanced cooperation. So there was the study of OECD, ISOC and UNESCO, I think, which identified one key fact about the correlation between the development of the infrastructure and the availability of local content. And, again, this is something that is very challenging for developing countries. And this is something that needs to be addressed more at national levels. And if we're talking about mechanisms to address these issues, then we have to go back and, you know, using the term that many people use "that Internet governance starts at home." So I'm more towards, you know, wanting to see more discussion or more listing of issues in relation to barriers and all this. And I think the exercise we're going to do shortly will identify whether those issues are relevant to the global agenda or the national agenda or elsewhere. So I'll stop there. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Baher. Well, for the time being, we have heard very interesting contributions. Some of them were controversial -- I mean, contradictory to each other. But it just reflects the complexity of the task which is ahead of us. So I wonder if you would like to comment on this group of questions about the barriers, local content? I turn to observers, if you have any comments. Well, in that case, I think we have concluded the first round. We have gone through all the questions. We have given our comments, and we have had a rich discussion about all these issues. So what is ahead of us is on one hand to formulate recommendations. On the other hand, we'd like to revisit the document which was offered to us by the voluntary task force and we were promised to have it by tomorrow. So, I'm reminded that Joy would like to take the floor. Joy, the floor is yours. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. Thank you for checking in. Can you hear me? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, very well. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. I just wanted to comment on the barriers to participation and to emphasize the barriers for particular groups that are listed in some of the submissions. And I'm quite concerned with some of the submissions in front of us. I'm a little concerned that some input seems to be repeating the (indiscernible) that we focused on, a particular concern about whether a (indiscernible) is needed or not. And I think that's doing a disservice to the hard work of submissions who have been active and taken submissions seriously. And I would ask you to be reminded about that and to focus particular on the barriers of civil society from developing countries and particularly those who access -- have a really significant issue and for those half of the world's population who do not even have access. In particular, I am also concerned about the barriers for women and particularly for women's participation in Internet governance. And this is the subject of a working group recommendation to the Human Rights Council. And I would ask the secretariat perhaps to consolidate a list of recommendations in relation to participation from some of the other U.N. bodies. I think that would be a useful input, if the working group could (indiscernible) as part of the recommendation acknowledge the other mechanisms and statements within Internet governance that have reached these barriers and made recommendations and actions on them. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. I believe in our discussions we tried to touch upon all the submissions we received. And we provided the kind of summary, which to my best knowledge, tried to really encompass all the relevant points and making an attempt not to forget about any of the contributions. In the group itself, I think there are representatives of U.N. bodies. And as the meeting is open, there is nothing to prevent other U.N. bodies to follow what we are doing here. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have listened with good interest to the interventions in regards to the barriers and to the understanding of how are we going to approach forward from this group. However, Mr. Chairman, as the Saudi government, we came to this meeting and we have a mandate from the UNGA resolution. And when we say "enhanced cooperation," it has to be as referenced in the Tunis Agenda. And we are coming from paragraph 69 that there's a need for enhanced cooperation in the future to enable governments. And being as a government, we are here to try to accomplish or start this mandate in regards to the enhanced cooperation and able governments to develop international public policy issues. Also, our references in regards to -- I have listened to the IGF dialogue and the enhancement and raise awareness of these, and we support this but in the same time, there should be in parallel the enhanced cooperation. And I'm also referring to UNGA resolutions that the two -- the IGF and enhanced cooperation is two distinct processes. The IGF is to provide the platform for all stakeholders to discuss dialogue, and the enhanced cooperation for governments is to provide the platform for governments to undertake their role. But I'm trying to speak here and try not to use the word "enhanced cooperation" or "IGF." I will try to tackle the issue as it's facing the global as a problem. I heard that there's -- I believe that the existing processes are adequate and there is no need for governments to assume a larger role in Internet governance. However, last night, my colleague and I were thinking of various issues on the Internet and how the current mechanisms are simply not able to handle them adequately. So maybe when giving an example, we will be more clear. And since I'm speaking in English, excuse me for my diplomacy. I would rather we have this in all six languages, but I will do my best. Everyone is familiar, for example, with the prevalence of botnets, phishing, malware, viruses, identity theft, online fraud and sadly child pornography. Who in this room has not received numerous spam messages containing an infected attachment or asking for the disclosure of personal identity information? Recently Saudi Arabia was the target of denial of service attacks against two of our largest companies in the petroleum industry, Saudi Aramco and Sabic. There are many more prominent examples around the world. Countries also face major difficulties dealing with the practices which is dangerous or illegal. Most content providers are responsive to the hosts of their home base country. The governments of these countries will intervene with the content providers when they believe that content is inappropriate or unlawful according to their laws or norms. But those governments are generally unhelpful when asked to intervene with content providers on behalf of other countries. A recent example for Saudi and many other Muslim countries was the YouTube video defaming the Prophet Muhammad based upon him. Can someone tell me how existing mechanisms will solve the problem when someone in Saudi Arabia or any other countries loses their life savings in an Internet scam from another country or a major oil exporter has their operation shut down or major structure is turned off or government services are destructed or bank records are stolen? Can someone tell me how the private sector, civil society, standard bodies, academia, can possibly handle these issues alone? Of course not. The only chance for success is the active participation of governments and their full role developing and implementing international cooperation and public policy in full consultation with all stakeholders. We also have heard about the equal footing in regards to the decision-making policy, equivalent to the governments. It is important to realize the governments are the bodies who have obligations to their citizens, to protect them from harm and to establish and maintain their rights both offline and online. No other stakeholder and group can perform this role in an unbiased manner. Unfortunately, because if they are at the governments in the multistakeholder Internet governance model and the Tunis Agenda has not been implemented, many countries cannot adequately benefit from the Internet or help their citizens solve the issues they are facing online. In addition, some governments also cannot protect their rights as states when it touches the sovereignty of the states. There's an entity or one entity has tremendous advantage of being able to enforce its low simply because it controls or manages or has access to so much of Internet infrastructure but also great influence over content providers operating within its border and exercises influence when it suits its purposes. But it shows no willingness to extend the influence when governments requested to court content be considered insensitive or is morally offensive. What we want is the following. International cooperation agreements are necessary and important and have proved to work well and to the benefit of all in the field of ICT. Good examples are frequency interference, spectrum harmonization, satellite orbits and compatible numbering. Any government when presented with a claim of cross-border frequency interference, for example, will investigate and take action to correct the problem irrespective of what entity in its jurisdictions is causing the problem. This could not happen without the direct involvement of governments. No other stakeholders' group could do it or would even want to do it. The same problems face all governments when trying to provide the benefits of the Internet to their citizens while protecting them and at the same time maintaining stability and interoperability of the Internet. The protection of citizens is the mandate of the governments. No other stakeholders group can do it, and most have no interest in doing it. The current governance mechanisms do not and cannot successfully address most of the critical problems and issues within the Internet. Governments should be able to protect their people and their entities in their territories both online and offline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. Any other comments? If not, I think this is the proper time to break for coffee. And then I would recommend you to come back at :35, 4:35. Thank you. [ Break ] [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Welcome back. May I ask you to take your seats, please? Thank you. Before the coffee break we discussed Group Number 5 and more general questions, and I think we have come to the end of discussing the responses based on the inputs to the questionnaire. We have gone through all the questions and it is my feeling that there's a sense of understanding, we understand each other, we know what -- what are the concerns of some of us. On a more positive note, I can sense some kind of consensus on some issues. So I would like to concentrate on those where we have the hope to achieve consensus. We don't really have to agree on everything. We don't really have to have all parties agree on everything. We may have dissenting voices. We have to keep in mind that we are formulating recommendations. It's not a resolution. Just recommendations. And we try to fulfill the mandate we have been given by the U.N. General Assembly. So right now I suggest to you to start the exercise of drafting. It will be a process. We are not going to draft, right now, the final text. I have asked the Secretariat to take the notes, your suggested text, and you can see it on the screen where our captioning will be available on the other screen. I'm sorry for those of you who are -- who have your back to this screen, and some of you who are more fortunate can see both. At this time I would like to concentrate on questions where I sensed a common understanding, and I think that was Group 4 and Group 5. So what I really want to do, the structure of the recommendations, I would follow the groupings we have been following during the two days up to now. So we may like to put them -- the groups and start by Group 4, that is questions of developing countries, and I'm expecting you to provide some text, what are the recommendations you think should come to the document we are going to provide for the CSTD next May. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair, and I think we have come to the perhaps the very important task which is of preparing a report of recommendations, a report with recommendations. I think it's -- while the approach that you proposed which is to take those areas where we seem to have a broad consensus and thereby focus on that and leaving those where we feel that there are -- obviously there's still not convergence of views at a later stage, I think we have some reservations on this approach. I'll explain why. Firstly, we all agree there needs to be critical discussion within the U.N. fora. We tend to leave the -- we tend to address all issues to start with and thereafter leave the final decision on those difficult areas to the last day. Taking that approach I think is sometimes useful because you tend to see that -- well, unless there's a certain amount of pressure that has been brought on purely on the issue of time, there is no -- no serious effort by the delegations to sort of arrive at a consensus. But having said that, in the current approach that we intend to follow, one -- there are issues which are difficult ones, we acknowledge and we have seen the diversity of views that are there, particularly on Group 2 and 3. Completely leaving that to a later date might not be an appropriate way to go about because these differences persist in the last day. Number one. Number two, there are decisions which are not to be made here. They all require certain inputs from the capitals and require certain kind of consensus building not -- outside the room, as I said. So my suggestion would be, Chair, would -- should we not start from the groups that we have prepared from the beginning and see whether there could be some consensus in terms of not necessarily the entire text but certainly on preparing some kind of, you know, (indiscernible) kind of language which would accommodate perhaps the idea that we intend to follow. Because at the end of today -- because we already -- two days of our discussions are almost getting over, and on the third day we have -- unless we have something to take back to the capital at the end of this working group meeting, it might be difficult to get decisions during the next -- and which will be the last meeting for all of us. So bearing that in mind, because if you have those issues which are difficult and they're presented on the last day of the meeting of the last session of the working group, I think we would not be in a position to mitigate some instructions from the capitals and thereby we would perhaps end up not making recommendations. Which is not -- which is a sad story. So I think as sometimes they say let's catch the bull by its horn and then see whether we can stand in front of it or we just run away from it. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Mr. Reddy. I am ready to consider your suggestion. The reason I am suggesting the approach that what I suggested is to build on something, and that is your approach as well. You want to have something to build on. You are suggesting to at least to have some (indiscernible) on the different groups, that you can take back to capital, which is also a viable solution. But we have to take also into account that during our discussions there was an effort made to identify issues and we have come up with 480-plus issues, which I don't think we can manage here, right now. Even if they are been downsized to 150, we can't manage. So I am not against making (indiscernible) and start with this text, but I can also see the danger of in case we don't agree on some text now, then all our future meeting or meetings -- because I'm not very sure that we will have only one meeting. It very much depends on you and the results we achieve during the one hour we have now and tomorrow, the whole day. So I'm just offering one option. I take your option, but I'm also wondering how others feel about it. Chris, please. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Thank you. I'm -- I find myself slightly confused. I -- I thought we had undertaken -- we're undertaking a mapping exercise where we've got some issues listed and someone I believe is going through them and looking at duplicates and we're supposed to be having an exercise where we see what we end up with and see if they can go through a test as to whether they apply. So how can we be working on resolutions until we've at least figured out what we're talking about? I may have misunderstood, but it struck me that we were trying to work on a mapping exercise. I'm lost. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Chris, I would like to make it clear to you we are not working on resolution. We are working on recommendation. Now, the -- it's not but it's -- it's -- it's a very important distinction. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I appreciate that. Sorry. >>CHAIR MAJOR: And I've made clear that probably the mapping exercise is being done -- well, the technical part to downsize it will be done by tomorrow and we may have a dry run on the basis which has been suggested, the five-step approach on some questions. But I also made it clear that we are not going to continue it here because some delegations or many delegations are not in the position of going through this. So they would like to take it back to capital. And I also made it clear that I intended to have some kind of draft recommendations on some issues which we may have consensus on. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. From our perspective, we think that it would be beneficial for the group to start with the two last groups because we have the same sense as you do, Chairman, that that's probably the areas where we have the biggest chance of, at this stage, reaching consensus on some recommendations. And I think it would be to the benefit of the whole group and contribute to building trust in the group if we can actually move forward with some recommendations since we're already at this stage. And I think also that we can benefit -- and I have at least benefited from the discussions we have had here these two days, and I'll bring that back to capital and to stakeholders back home and maybe work a little bit back home on potential thinking around recommendations on the more difficult issues. And I think we can also utilize the time that we have from now to the next meeting to discuss with each other also in different constellations on those more difficult issues so that we can come better informed and to the next meeting and start working on some of the more difficult issues by then. And also in relation to the mapping exercise, I think the mapping is very important and our sense is that it especially benefits the questions in Group 1 and Group 2, maybe Group 3 and therefore, we think that we can do things in parallel. We can do the mapping exercise to help us with moving forward on those issues in Group 1, 2, and 3, and at the same time we can actually start to work on recommendations for Group 4 and 5 where we have more concerns. And so we agree with your approach. We think that that would help us build confidence in the group and maybe then that we would -- we can use when we approach those more difficult issues at a later stage. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Actually, Chair, both that Constance and Phil had their -- and also Parminder so I will just wait my turn. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Parminder? >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. Two set of issues trying to comment on how we are working and how possibly we can give a productive outcome at the end of the whole period of our working group. One is about our express mandate, and the other is about expectations of the world from us. And about the express mandate, first, and as the Chair reminded us oftentimes that there is a mandate, and let's stick to that. And the mandate is to examine the Tunis Agenda's mandate of enhanced cooperation and to give recommendations to fully operationalize it. Now, that's the mandate. If we have to do something on the mandate, we have to go to the Tunis Agenda and do a search of the word "enhanced cooperation" and read each section, 68 and 69. Yeah. 68 first. No, no, 68, 69 and then 70 and 71. And it says that there is enhanced cooperation which is defined as the issue of international public policy issues. Whoever has to do it, I'm reading the question out because that may be contention, equal footing of the governments or not or all stakeholders. But it is very clear. We need to deal with international public policy issues related to the Internet. There's clear pointing to the fact that there are international public policy issues to be dealt with. They are important. And, obviously, that's why you find mention of the words in the document. And they need to be dealt with. We need to figure out how to deal with them and that's the principle mandate. The question of whether developing countries participate in that -- and "that" is not known yet -- or what are the barriers of participation, otherwise to "that" does only come after we have discussed to some length what is "it" we are talking about, how are we going to address international public policy issues, multistakeholder, multilateral, only private sector, whatever. But that comes before we talk about the role of developing countries or various participation because I can't talk about the role of developing countries -- in what? In keeping their citizens happy? In warfare? What? It is about their responsibilities in international public policy issues. And it if that is not spoken, I don't see how 4 and 5 can be spoken. And to speak about 4 and 5, it anticipates that there is an existing mechanism in some ways which is doubted by many people here, not a consensus but some people doubt it. So I don't see how -- till we deal to some extent, whatever level we can reach a consensus, with the issue of mechanism, we discuss the role of developing countries in that mechanism because I don't see 4 and 5 as role of developing countries -- I'm repeating myself -- in just something but in that particular mechanism, whether it exists or not and, again, barriers to participation in that particular thing which can be defined only by 2 and 3. The second part of my intervention is about a certain kind of disappointment with the fact that this group sits with a global responsibility to address questions which are bothering a lot of people everywhere. The newspapers are full of it. Stories are being written. People are discussing in their bedrooms. And we seem not directly addressing questions which people are bothered about. The U.N. working group is supposed to be addressing the world's problems. The world's problems are of many kinds. They are not just related to what has been called recent revelations but many other Internet-related issues, the consumer rights across borders, the cross-border data flows, Internet connectivity. Taxation, where does value accrue? And where does tax take place? Cybersecurity. There are huge issues that people are talking about, to see that those issues either do not exist or are being dealt with at the present is the core we need to address. After that, we address how to enhance the system by increasing participation of different people. So I think both ways we need to go to the meat of the issue, see where we can converge. There was a lot of work happening outside this room. ICANN goes to the President of a country, makes some offers. They say that we should hurry towards internationalization of oversight. Those words are not being mentioned inside the working group which has the global mandate through a legitimate global U.N. process to be looking at those questions. It is something, I think, which is not quite right when we are well past the halfway stage of this working group. I think we need to directly address these questions, find the views of the people, try to converge them as far as we can. But I think we cannot avoid those key issues to be dealt with first. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I think during the two days, it has been said many times that we have a mandate and we try to stick to this mandate. We have compiled a questionnaire. We have received inputs. We have discussed these inputs, reviewed them, and we have spent about two days reviewing and having some sense what are the main concerns. I have nothing against bringing on board new issues as I told you because we are really mandated to give our opinion as well. However, during the two-day discussion we had up till now, we have been discussing the inputs and some comments we have made on that. So it was my understanding that the group would like to work in this way. And I repeated many times that we are going to work in this way and I had no objection to that. So I reiterate my proposal to work the way I suggested. But I'm ready to listen to other voices. Phil? >>PHIL RUSHTON: I think listening to discussion thus far in your proposal, Chair, has been quite interesting. In the two days that we've sat here, I think it has been recognized that since the agreement of the output of WSIS, the world has moved on. We are more than halfway through what we think is our term of activity. And even in recent weeks, there has been activity that we couldn't have perceived six months ago being of interest to us in the discussions. If we look at the mandate which says "to examine the mandate of the WSIS regarding enhanced cooperation," there are some things that I think we have talked around as the distinguished delegate from Sweden suggested, which is there are recognized barriers and issues around participation. And I think there is some value in looking at or trying to look at through the eyes of required activities to ensure that all voices, all stakeholders, are engaged. It is right to say that not all stakeholders are engaged. And we should work to ensure that our recommendations or at least one of the recommendations, I'm sure, address and endeavor to resolve those barriers. Will we completely resolve those barriers? I would like to think yes, but I suspect not. I think in taking it forward and looking at Groups 4 and 5 which are fairly wide areas, I do think applying some sort of mapping exercise to try to take elements of 4 and 5 to make sure that what we are recommending on specific issues are of value and can be seen to achieve consensus within the room. It is not to say that we do 4 and 5 here and then walk away from it, but I think it is a part to say we try and do one, one issue that we have some sort of agreement on is important, that we can try out the mapping mechanism. Does that work? Does that have to be changed? Have we got it right? One of the issues I think we are facing is we're trail blazing. We don't have a process. We are making it up as we go along almost. And I think while that's good and it proves that we're responsive to the needs, it takes time for us, I think, to come to some sort of agreement. So I think if we are looking at our mandate and looking at a way forward, I think taking a very specific approach to the areas where there seems to be consensus, trying to select an issue from those areas and seeing whether or not there's some value in taking those forward, I think, would be a useful way forward. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. While you have the floor, can you give me some concrete example how you think the way forward is in Group 4? Any concrete... >>PHIL RUSHTON: I think I would pick up on the debate that we had before coffee and I think specifically referenced by the delegate -- distinguished delegate from Sweden on access to all multistakeholders in this debate. I think Grace made a very useful intervention prior to coffee as to what the barriers were, and I think there's some activity there that we could look at to see whether or not we could make a recommendation going forward as to how we might address or suggest that those barriers be addressed. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. As far as I can see, this is very much along the line I suggested. Constance? >>CONSTANCE BOMMELAER: Thank you, Chair. I would just like to support the point Phil made and the distinguished delegate from Sweden. I think Parminder raises a very critical point which is the global responsibility of this group which is to look at hard issues. And a lot of work went into trying to list these issues, including emerging difficult issues. And in terms of methodology, I would propose that we follow the path discussed before the coffee break and try to have a rigorous approach in looking at these issues. We could start with access. We could start with multistakeholder participation. And that exercise would naturally lead us to possible recommendations. Rushing to recommendations without having done this mapping exercise seems difficult from my perspective. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Constance. Saudi Arabia. Brazil? Brazil, okay. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you. Well -- sorry, I lost my notes. I'd like to say I see merit in the two approaches. I think we -- well, first of all, I fully agree with India in that the most central issues we should tackle are contained in Groups 1 and 2. Clearly, for example, the way Question Number 8 is drafted: What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda? This links directly to the mandate. And also when we asked: To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? So these are the core issues that are at the heart of our mandate. So clearly this -- if we have to dedicate -- if we have limited amount of time, this should clearly be the focus of our work. However, I also see merit in starting with Questions 4 and 5 in the spirit Sweden has mentioned to build confidence and establish models of parameters and also thinking that in the second stage we could benefit of the mapping exercise, a tool that would also enable us to tackle questions in Groups 1 and 2 more efficiently. So the Number 4 and 5 would be, let's say, the low-hanging fruit that we could go and have a more concrete outcome. But, however, this -- I don't think you can disassociate this with the time constraints we have. I think the most crucial issue -- and I don't feel there is clarity at this most whether we are going to have one or two meetings. If we are going to have two meetings, I think we can allow us the luxury of not engaging to Groups 1 and 2 now, allow us some more time to go about it in our next meeting but with the assurance that we will have opportunity for that. And I fully agree with India, that if we have just one more single meeting, it would be very difficult to tackle at the same meeting, to start dealing with different issues and at the end of the same meeting coming out with solutions. So maybe, Mr. Chair -- I don't know the appropriate moment. But I think this decision on how to go about it should be linked to the decision whether we'll have one or two meetings. I think that might provide some more clarity for all of us. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Very helpful. Really, really helpful. So before I give the floor to Saudi Arabia and then I can see Jimson, I would like to think about the possibility of having more than one meeting next year. I suggest us to have one meeting in January and one meeting in February. I leave it to you now. And let's listen to Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I understand the time constraint that we are facing for this very delicate job to come up with the recommendations. But we can have a recommendation, I believe, by this meeting, but is it going to relate to the mandate of the group or not? That's the core -- I mean, that's the importance, that the recommendation relates to the mandate of the group. And I would like to bring the attention that the Cluster 4 and 5, it has been answered based -- or after the questions that relates to how to implement enhanced cooperation and what are the mechanisms. And when we answered that, we got the input. Then we reach a consensus in regards to the role of the developing countries. So the core is to undertake Question 2 and 3 first. Then we will have, I mean, no difficulties going to 4 and 5. But we cannot talk about participation. Participation in what? The role of the developing countries in what? So it is very important to start with 2 and 3. And even if we are going to have two meetings, that as of to date puts us 50% of the work of the group even if we have two meetings. This is the second meeting. And we are approaching half or almost 2/3 of the second meeting. So it is very important to start with the core mandate to get the recommendations. Then it will be very easy to decide the role of the developing countries in the recommendations that we have and then how to enhance the participation in enhanced cooperation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. I think we had today discussions so we don't have to pretend that we haven't discussed these issues. And we don't have some kind of understanding what is on the table. So I believe that all of us have kind of an understanding what we are discussing. Jimson. >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you, Distinguished Chair, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. Please permit me to just make a few comments with regard to the issue at hand. Shortly before we went for tea break, there was an intervention by the distinguished representative from Saudi Arabia with regard to the role of government and the mandate as has been well articulated by Parminder and many others that have spoken. Well, from the business constituency, from the business and from developing countries, we do know clearly that government have a very clear role. Governments are the sovereign rule in the face of citizens. What we also are saying is that, yes, there is some dynamicism -- there is some dynamic evolution. Saw that while the government leads, it also leads with business and stakeholders so that we can all have the people together. I would say this. I also want to illuminate the fact that when we talk about rule of law, it's already agreed that rule of law offline is the same as rule of law in the online world. And as such, how has it been tackled in the offline world? I believe through a lot of collaboration, through a lot of bilateral agreements. A lot has been achieved. Even when it also drags into the online world, let me give you this illustration, something that happened in Nigeria not too long ago, maybe about four, five years back. There was a case of online fraud performed by a Nigerian citizen in Brazil. And the guy ran to Nigeria and (indiscernible) mighty structures in Abuja and many places. A true cooperation between Nigeria and Brazil, the guy was tracked down and (indiscernible). And the company back in Brazil got at least some of the -- got justice. So what I'm saying is that government has their clear role and it is not in discord. What we are also saying now is that we need to walk with existing mechanism, strengthen the existing mechanism. For example, it is such a great privilege that I'm here with my colleagues here, government, all the stakeholders, discussing this international issue. We are already discussing it. And I believe, Distinguished Chair, after this time out, whatever we agree will go to the CSTD. What the recommendation is, it will go to the CSTD. We are a composition of CSTD already. And CSTD, from there, it will go to ECOSOC and ECOSOC to G8 where governments really persuade it. So my submission is that, yes, we are making progress. We can actually really start some form of recommendation. Once we do the mapping, clearly everybody sees. And we also have some middle points, some understanding. So we have existing mechanism. We need to recognize this. The government already played the role, and we also support it and play also a role -- important role. And after this, CSTD will -- I have the privilege of being in the CSTD meeting, one of the meetings. And there's room for improvement. But we're making progress. So what we have currently can really pack in a lot of things if we focus on it, bilateral agreement, collaboration, cooperation, can pack a lot of things while we look forward to the optimum solution as the case may be. I just want to illuminate this question with regard to the role of government, which is undeniable very important. Sovereign rule is very important. There is a mandate for government which we will respect. Our government takes the lead in Africa and we follow. If government does not really move, we are happy the government is willing to come with them to move together. So we understand the role of government. But at the same time, at this top level, we should not complicate the matter necessarily. Finally, we got to the meeting periods, well, I wouldn't mind being around if you want to have three more meetings. But the funding issue is a challenge. So it is a major program we're into, and there is no funding. So is that a demonstration of the seriousness at the top level? So there should be some really commitment from the part of government that set this up. So this is good, Chair and colleagues. I just want to say that, well, as much as we can, if it is just one meeting, I personally will still be able to still try to fund myself to be here for one more meeting. Two more, I will need help. I'm a small business. And I feel that I have constituency, a lot of constituencies, as a matter of fact. So if we start making progress with recommendations and tidying up the mapping process, it will be better for us. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson. I fully understand your concerns and naturally take note of that. And probably if I suggest to have more than one meeting, I would suggest to have one meeting in January and eventually, if needed, to have an additional meeting in February in order to be able to have some contingency to be able to finish our work. Marilyn, you wanted to take the floor? >>MARILYN CADE: Yes. I think both the U.S. and Phil were -- and Virat. But I'm happy to speak, but I don't want to get in front of other people who have their flags up. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I have a list and you are on it. >>MARILYN CADE: Fantastic. [ Laughter ] What I wanted to -- first of all, I'd like to echo the comments that my colleague Jimson made. Even when there is funding available, that funding goes, first of all, to governments, to civil society and to academics. It never goes to small businesses. And this is a significant burden particularly for small businesses to participate. And we need to be really committed to having the diversity of participation. The vast number of businesses that will be starting in all countries are going to be small businesses. And that is where the engine of economic growth and bringing the kinds of public policies and access to the world that we want to see happen. So if we don't have the ability to have the participation of SMEs in our considerations and our deliberations, we are really missing a critical element of those who can help to provide thoughtful solutions. So I want to just reinforce the concern about that. I think we also have to understand that it is important to bring experts from capital for governments and to bring experts from the other stakeholders, not just to rely on the folks who are here in Geneva or are local from any stakeholder group because of the expertise and the depth of understanding that is needed. I would much prefer, Chair, that if we have -- that we have a longer meeting, even as long as four days, and that we dedicate our work. Many of us participate in other U.N. entities and activities, such as the ITU. We're quite familiar with multi-day meetings. So if we had this much work to do, one approach would be to have a four-day meeting and have only one meeting and to really dedicate ourselves to be able to diminish the cost implications of travel. But I took the floor really to make a comment about the Group 4 items. I've listened to concerns expressed by some participants that we can't talk about participation in what but, in fact, we ask questions. And over 60 respondents found answers to questions about participation in what. We may not be able to address the question about participation in a new mechanism since I don't believe there's consensus in the room on new mechanisms. But we certainly could look at Question 10 and Question 15. I think there is one other question. Because we have robust answers. We are an expert committee and we ask people to provide comments. And I want to be sure that we are living up to our commitment to those who submitted comments that we are focused on their answers. And there will be when we start talking about solutions probably some differences of opinion. But I do think we could start with Group 4. And generally I found in the long number of years I've been working in these fora, it's always better to start with the low-hanging fruit and have a couple of successes before you start diving into the deep end of the ocean. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. As for the suggestion of having a four-day meeting, eventually a five-day meeting, I have to tell you that I'm really enjoying your company. [ Laughter ] It is a real pleasure to be with you. >>MARILYN CADE: Chair, I hope you are not going to take a poll on whether everyone else agrees. >>CHAIR MAJOR: No, no, no, no. So I am ready. [ Laughter ] I'm really ready to have a four-day meeting or a five-day meeting. So much the better. And eventually it may be a good idea. So I had to fight to have a three-day meeting because originally it was meant to be a two-day meeting. But I'm ready to have the four-day or five-day meeting and probably it will have small businesses to come and civil society and all of our representatives because the extra cost is much less. Probably we have to ask other stakeholders how they think about it. But that's another issue. I'm ready for that. As for the low-hanging fruit, I like this expression, of course, and personally I'm all for it. But it's up to you naturally what you choose. So next one on my list is Virat. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the house would agree that three or four issues that have dominated the discussion over the last two days is about government's role in participation. The very difficult circumstances that is placed over developing countries are to participate in the Internet governance processes, even more within that the civil society groups and to some extent academia, and moving forward to identify what could be the mechanisms as well as said on day one that the heart of the problem is between Question 4, 8 -- 4 and 8 essentially. But I think we need to remind ourselves that we can't be a solution in search of a problem. We can't start drafting recommendations unless we have -- and most of us have agreed on that at some stage or the other -- a clear problem definition which is identified by the issues and a mapping exercise which tells us through the five-, six-step process, whatever we finalize on, which of the issues that need the kind of mechanisms that have been suggested by some. And I think the importance of the mapping exercise is underscored by the fact that if you look at the responses of the people who took the time to respond to us, the 60 responses, they've done a very elaborate job of putting those down as bullet points or numbers. And I think they deserve the importance and the consideration as we drive towards identifying mechanisms which is principally at the heart of Question 8 or Item 2, as it were. A question has been asked about what should be the role of developing countries in what. I think a similar question can be asked that we start writing recommendations for mechanisms to address what. So I suppose this is a chicken-and-egg story, and we have to begin at some stage where we can all find a basic consensus. My guess or assessment at least is that the last two buckets found a fairly high level of consensus in the sessions that you chaired earlier today. And that might be the appropriate place to begin work. I would also argue that with regards to the meetings, I think there are 15 participants here who have traveled from outside of Geneva that are on the three stakeholders that are seated at this table. And there are about six or eight on the observer side who have traveled. You have very kindly allowed 20 observers but only eight -- seven or eight have come in. In the civil society, there are only two participants. On the technical community, there are three out of five. So I think there's -- sorry, three participants on the civil society side. I think it's clear that these are the groups that are having difficulty even coming to this meeting. So given that they're having such difficulty even coming to a meeting which was planned for months and funding could have been arranged, I think the point that was made by my colleague here, Jimson, and others, we need to focus firstly on the latter two buckets. And, second, if a meeting has to be held, we would request two things of you. One is try and combine it or bring it close to another event which allows the participants to defray their costs. And look for a four-day meeting because I think it is -- while it might be an imposition on the time of the governments which are in Geneva because they have many, many things to do, I think the incremental cost of staying for a day is a small fraction, 150, 200 Swiss francs at best, even lower in some cases, than all of our costs of flying and sort of parking yourself twice over for three days. So if you could please consider that suggestion. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Virat. As I told you, I have nothing against having a four- or five-day meeting, on the contrary. And your point is taken. Jimson's point is taken. And probably all of us -- or many of us are sympathetic to this solution. And thank you for offering that. I have Iran on the list and USA and we have Avri who is a remote participant from the civil society. Iran, please. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your efforts. You're trying to solve the problem as soon as possible and as much as possible. I may have been on your side first that we have to start with the easiest issues to solve, to make an example of our cooperations. But listening carefully to the room, I think the matter is not to start from deep ocean or shallow waters. I think the matter is to start with the core issue, which is more important. We need to finish first the core issues. As you heard from me in the morning that the other questions like 10 or 15 are very much related to the answers on Question 3 or 2, therefore, when we don't have -- or we have not reached any conclusion on the core issue, how come we can go to the end of the matter? I can make this example that we are constructing a building. Do we start from finishing, or do we start from the foundation? So the core issue which is the first and second group of questions are the foundation. Let's start from the foundation, not the finishing. That will help us to go faster in the other steps we are going to take. On having the meetings for four days, Mr. Chairman, we are in your hands. We are ready to whatever the room is going to decide to have four or three days, two or three meetings, no problem. But let's start from the most important parts and very hard part of our job. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Iran. United States? >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, this is to signal our support for your approach to meet our mandate and to show progress as soon as possible. Chairman, we think it makes very good sense to approach first those issues that are likely to reach consensus. I think Brazil put it first, low-hanging fruit. And we agree and I think other speakers did as well. We think it's important to allow the mapping exercise to move forward so that we can be informed on difficult issues that we wish to find consensus. Again, I'm remembering words -- if I'm remembering correctly of what the Ambassador from Brazil said, it would be very helpful to know where we are to better inform where we're going. We think it is important to take the time we need, whatever time that is in the estimation and assessment of this group, to address all issues, important issues, core issues, all of them, to find consensus. So, Chairman, for these reasons, simply to come in and to support you in your approach. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, United States. And, finally, if I'm not mistaken, it's Avri. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Am I muted? Am I unmuted? >>CHAIR MAJOR: You are unmuted, Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: I'm unmuted now. Thank you. I join those of my colleagues in the room who have suggested that we need to do the mapping exercise before we start to make recommendations. I guess I'm among those who do not understand how we can make any recommendation if we haven't finished the analysis. We have done a first discussion of the comments we received, but we have not done yet the analysis that the mapping exercise represents that brings all of these things together, that maps them against existing institutions and that finds the gaps, the gaps that I believe were our mandate to go back and see what they fill. I also agree with those that say we must start with the most important part, but I for one still don't understand which part is the most important until we have done a mapping exercise. We may end up solving the problem for which there is already a solution if we try to do it before we have fully understood. I also have a question. At the beginning of the inception you said that we would not be working on a basis of consensus. Perhaps I misunderstood when that statement -- when I heard -- or when I thought I heard that. I'm being very careful with my words, spending all day at the IETF where one speaks one way and spending all night with this meeting where we speak another way has been very confusing for my brain. But if -- if I didn't misunderstand we're not working on a basis of consensus, on what basis are we deciding what it is we, as a group, are recommending? And finally -- >>CHAIR MAJOR: Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: I support Marilyn's call for a longer meeting, if needed. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: I believe it -- yes. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Sorry to interrupt you. We are working on the basis of consensus, which does not mean they are not -- we don't allow dissent. >>AVRI DORIA: I'm still confused. So we are working on a basis of consent. >>CHAIR MAJOR: You're not muted. Consensus means consensus. >>AVRI DORIA: So we're working on a basis of rough consensus. Okay. Thank you. Finally I wanted to say I support Marilyn and the other people who have called for a longer meeting. I actually also believe that it is better to maximize the time spent at a meeting as opposed to dealing with multiple travel events which cost people a minimum of two days, sometimes for some people it's four days just to travel to and from a meeting. If that needs to be done, fine. But if we can maximize the time, and again, I think it's very important for various reasons to have a very strong notion of remote participation for whatever meeting we do. In my case I had a conflict because of an important technical meeting. In other cases it might be funding, it might be other events. Participating in a meeting from 1:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. is okay as long as one can do it. And I appreciate all the efforts that have been made to make it possible. But I think that is essential medium in terms of supporting everyone in this group and supporting all the important observers who can contribute to this important role. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. Anyone else who would like to take the floor on these procedural issues? India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. The debate seems to have started from this end of the table. I think, you know, we again have a bit of a Catch-22 situation here. One, as I said, the particular -- we are talking the process now. We aren't talking the substance. I think to be very clear, some colleagues have gone down the path of, you know, looking at the substance and drawing conclusions and others are not interested. I don't think that's the case. The (indiscernible) for arriving at very positive and concrete recommendations is when we actually come to do -- as we know, let's at all agree to that, there are some difficult areas. Our difficulty sitting as part of the representatives of the government is that these decisions are not made just in this room. They are to be made back home. There will be consultations. All that we need is, if we decide to go down that path, we need to know what are those issues. Because we cannot come to the last meeting and be told this is the last meeting and then we are presented with a situation for which we will not have answers. And that's the short point I'm making. So if we can find the solution, we should be able to do that. Whichever way we go, I mean, we have great confidence in your leadership -- I use the word "leadership" -- and to take it back there. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, I'm listening to you very carefully, and I can't help thinking about the questionnaire we had, the answers which have been made available, and the summary which was made available as well. So we cannot pretend that we don't know the issues. We cannot pretend that back home people didn't know the issues who are responsible to -- for all discussions on the governmental level. So I don't think that this is a proper way of putting it. I fully agree that we need agreement, some of us need agreement from back home, or at least need to consult. But having said that, all the information was available and we knew the issues, we knew what we came here for, and we knew what was ahead of us. We have to work. Now we are discussing how we are going to work. The easiest part is whether we are going to have -- well, probably we are not going to have two meetings, we are going to have one meeting. And as I hear from the room, there is a kind of agreement that we shall have a four -- eventually a five-day meeting. Which should be back-to-back to some other important event. Probably we have to consult our calendars. There's an IGF open consultation on the one hand, there are important meetings in the ITU, council working groups, this is (indiscernible). So probably we have to go back to your calendars and find out the appropriate way to handle it. It's most unfortunate that we cannot really take many more events into account which may be conflicting. I'm referring to eventually to IETF meetings or ICANN meetings or -- I'm referring only to meetings which we have in Geneva. That's one point. And so the second point, how we are going to proceed. I heard three approaches. One approach was, don't do anything until we go through the mapping exercise. But we have -- we have heard as well that if we go into the mapping exercise, we need support for some of us. We need support from back home. Because we are going to make kind of value judgments and we are going to set categories and we are going to classify different issues which have been submitted to us which probably those who submitted to us vote -- or felt very important and they are very important for them. So I believe if we go into the mapping exercise, a full mapping exercise, it may take the whole day tomorrow, but it will take a couple of more weeks. That's one point. The other point is, I heard the approach that eventually we should go and tackle the core issues. I heard also that we cannot tackle core issues before we do the mapping exercise. I heard as well that we need some confidence building. And it -- it was said that eventually some questions in Group 4 and 5 would serve this purpose, to help us to build some confidence and to find out for me how this group can work together. Up to now, we have been discussing, we have had very nice debate, very good discussions, very good ideas, but as of now I think we have to work. So I really think that probably as a compromise we should give a try to the mapping exercise, to start for a very short while and I have had the promise from observers that I will have a reduced list, and we can try, how does it work. But we're not going to finish with that, and I don't intend to finish it here. As we agree that we are not going to finish it here. We agree that we are going to have a kind of working party which will be an open and developing party in the same way that we have the working group here. Now as for the core issues, if we agree that core issues are extremely difficult and may be some time damaging for the confidence if we fail at the very beginning, then probably I wouldn't think it's a wise thing, even though I -- I appreciate the logic concerning the foundation and concerning the building from bottom-up, but I also believe that at the end of the meeting we are going -- right now if we can have at least some kind of mechanism we can agree upon that is how to come to some consensus on recommendations, it would be extremely beneficial. And it doesn't prevent us to attack the core issues when we have the result of the mapping exercise, when we have a clear picture and we will be involved in that, to attack during a long meeting, which I suggest to be sometime, as we have agreed, next year, to attack the core issues and all issues and we can come up with appropriate recommendations. So what I suggest for tomorrow, after having received the document, we start discussing the document. I would suggest to have this discussion for about an hour, and then I also suggest to try the procedure how to achieve some kind of consensus on recommendations. I hope this is agreeable to all of us. Yes, Joy. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. Can you hear me? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, Joy, we can hear you. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: A brief comment. Thank you to the Secretariat for sending the document to the list. I wonder is it possible for us to make amendments to the document and post those back to the list. I'm asking because some submissions are not included, and it might be helpful to get those. But I also don't want to unduly (indiscernible) later a briefing on the document. I think if there's some guidance on that I would appreciate it. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Joy, I consulted with the Secretariat and probably your request will be taken into consideration. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a five-minute spot for the observers before we break, and I -- I hope you are going to tell us good news. >> Thank you, Chair. So we've been working on removing the duplicates from the document now and while we have some time to go yet but it should be done today. So it's probably ready for tomorrow. To answer Joy's question, perhaps not to confuse anyone, it might be best to send the list of issues that you have, Joy, to either me or the Chair and then we can get it and then we'll include it onto the list that we're working on now, if that's okay. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: That would be a perfect solution. I'd prefer to send to -- to send it to the Secretariat. Thank you. Well -- just a request to observers, do you think you can make it available by 9:00 tonight? Okay. In that case, the Secretariat can send it out for the beginning of tomorrow's meeting. So in this spirit I wish you a nice evening and I see you tomorrow at 10:00. Thank you. ***Live scribing by Brewer & Darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***. -------------- next part -------------- 8 November, 2013 Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation 10:00 a.m. Geneva, Switzerland [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome also to today. I could see from the U.N. that it was a productive night, evening, morning. We have a document produced by the voluntary task force. They managed to bring down the number of issues from 483 to some 200, if I'm not mistaken. But I'm told this is not the final and there's still some work to be done. So before starting our work today, I would like to give you some summary how I see the progress we have made during the second day of our meeting. So yesterday we discussed Group Number 4 and Group Number 5 questions. And I think the discussion was very interesting and very fruitful, and I could sense a great deal of consensus on many issues. At the same time, we received the spreadsheet. Yesterday it was 483. Now I think it's down to 200. These are issues which have been extracted from the responses to the questionnaire we have created. And I understand that there was some additional contributions to this spreadsheet as far as the issues are concerned. So as I mentioned, the voluntary task group tried to eliminate the duplicates. And we are facing now to identify categories and what is behind -- what is ahead of us, in fact, is to identify mechanisms and institutions. So probably it's a huge task and I think we can agree that probably the time which is available for us is not enough, but we can have a test run, what I will propose a little bit later. So yesterday we have also gave some thoughts about the future meeting or meetings. And it has been said that eventually, if we could have one meeting instead of two and one meeting would be longer, it would be beneficial for all of us. And I think there was a kind of consensus on that issue. So I would propose to have a third meeting, a five-day meeting, sometime in February back-to-back to the ITU Council Working Group on WSIS +10. Probably the secretariat should check the availability of the rooms. So what I propose is the 10th to the 14th of February. But we can discuss it, but definitely I would like to have a five-day meeting. We should take into consideration as well that we are going to have the IGF open consultation and the MAG meeting which I think -- I can't see Chengetai now. But I think it's around the 17th, 18th. I'm not really sure but somewhere around this time. So probably it will fit into this long period. Yes, Marilyn? >>MARILYN CADE: Chair, if I might just contribute to the consideration of the calendar for all colleagues for just a minute. The WSIS +10/WSIS Forum consultation dates are fixed, organized at the ITU, 17th through 18th of February which is Monday and Tuesday. Not all colleagues externally from stakeholders will be participating in person in that session but many colleagues from other stakeholders, which I'm not trying to address governments but other stakeholders, will participate in the IGF consultation, the IGF/MAG consultation. Could we consider for efficiency's sake also the option of the week following so a second option to consider would be 17th, 18th February is the fixed WSIS +10 meeting. That, of course, needs to be respected. Then, if possible, a three-day MAG/IGF meeting, a weekend and then the CSTD working group meeting. I believe that would be the -- not looking at a calendar, but that would be the last week of February, the 24th. Because if external travelers, those outside of Geneva, do not have to travel to the WSIS +10 meeting but will be traveling to the IGF, it would be more efficient time-wise to have the IGF consultation and the CSTD working group consultations adjacent to each other. Just as a consideration. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn, for the -- for this information. I have no preference. My preference is to optimize on the costs and efficiency, of course. It is really up to you. I'm ready to be with you, as I said yesterday, as I'm enjoying your company. [ Laughter ] And I mean it. [ Laughter ] Any time. But probably not during Christmas. But who knows. [ Laughter ] So, yes, Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. And good morning to all colleagues. Well, just to agree with the previous speaker, we have a preference for the week starting with February 24. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Virat? >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, everyone. I think the point that Marilyn has made which is a lot of stakeholders will come to the open consultation for the MAG and they could stretch themselves over the weekend and stay back for the next four or five days for the conference. So that we do support the issue of moving it the week after the MAG meetings. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. I have no problem with that. I think we are going to have the open consultation on Wednesday and the MAG meeting on Thursday and there will be a consultation for the donor countries, donors, which will be on Friday and probably many of us won't be involved in this discussion on Friday. So you will have one free day, Friday, to go to the mountains and ski. And it is also applicable for the weekend. Okay. So can we agree on the last week of February, a five-day meeting? Joy? Joy, I can hear that you want to intervene. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Yes. Good morning, everybody. Good morning, colleagues. I need to ask you to call a halt to this conversation because the remote participants cannot hear the conversation, nor can we see the transcript. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. I think we are going to fix it. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning, everyone. We have no difficulties with the last week of February -- (typing noise). But if we could ask the ITU in the cluster groups of the council working groups in February, we need to know because it might -- the following week, usually it's two weeks, council working groups. And I'm not sure the WSIS +10, is it in the second week or the first week. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Can you check it? >>SAUDI ARABIA: I will. And I will get back. >>CHAIR MAJOR: On your Web site -- >>SAUDI ARABIA: It is not on the Web site yet. I checked. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. >>SAUDI ARABIA: I might coordinate with the ITU and get back to you this session. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Very useful. Very useful. Yes, ITU, you don't know about the council working groups? >>ITU: Thank you, Chairman. Yes, but it is still under discussion and then it will be posted on the Web site soon but I will check it with the General Secretariat and come back to you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, provisionally, can we agree on the last week? I think this is the most suitable. Probably we can't find any other period which suits all of us. That's clear. Jimson? >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Yeah. Distinguished Chair, Your Excellency, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I support the last speaker about when the meeting should be called February 24th to 28th. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So I can conclude that there's a support for this. Probably we didn't take into account the ski holidays in Switzerland, but that's another issue. For me, the important thing is we agree on a five-day meeting. It will allow us to work through all the issues which are ahead of us. And I sincerely hope that at the end of the third meeting, we will have a consolidated document of recommendation. Ellen, please. >> ELLEN BLACKLER: Thank you. Good morning. Can we talk a little bit about whether four or five days should be the meeting length? Is there a way we could stretch out each of the days a little longer, maybe start at 9:00 instead of 10:00 and maybe keep it to four so we can do travel on the fifth day? >>CHAIR MAJOR: India, please. >>INDIA: Good morning, Chair. Good morning all colleagues. We can fully support that proposal. If we can stretch a little more and work for four days, we have no difficulty. But we can also work five. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I have no difficulty starting at 9:00 and coming back at 2:00 and working until 6:00. I really have no difficulties about that. Still, I think we have to have a fifth day as a contingency. Yes, Virat. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chairman, whatever you do, please don't make it 9:00 to 8:00 and five days. [ Laughter ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, I can't promise on the last day that we are not going to stay here up until 9:00 in the evening, but I will try to avoid it. Okay. Let's come back to this issue. Let's give a second thought. We agreed on the last week of February. We agreed that it won't be a three-day meeting. It will be a longer meeting, eventually four or five. I prefer to have a five-day meeting. But let's get back to that. Now, what I propose now, we have the document provided by the voluntary task force. And I understand it's coming or it's being -- they still need one minute. What I propose, after we receive it, we have a one-hour slot to consider this document and I would like to have proposals how to proceed with the document. What I can see, the complexity of it requires some further thinking. I really would like to have the proposals how to move forward. Definitely, it is a very valuable document and it will help us to clarify the institutions to identify gaps so I believe this is something we should really take seriously into consideration. After the one-hour slot, we shall have coffee break. Then I propose to get back to two things. There was a proposal from India yesterday to kind of frame our work that is the end result, which are recommendations. And I would expect to have some proposal from India concerning some text which is, I would repeat, a draft. It is a draft and we are going to revisit everything during our last meeting. Having said that, I would like also to have proposals for Group 4 and 5 questions as far as recommendations are concerned. Yesterday I heard that some delegates, some members, would like to propose some recommendations for this group. In case we can come up with a consolidated spreadsheet on the issues and we can come up with the framework for the recommendations and if we can somehow put some text into this framework, I think we have done a great job. And this is a very solid basis for our next meeting. So I'm just turning to Sam. You have the document? It is in electronic form? It is available for the WGEC list? >> I just sent it to wgec at unctad.org. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. Thank you. First of all, I would like to ask you, is it acceptable the way I propose to move forward? That is, one-hour slot to discuss the paper and after coffee break, we start discussion on framework for the recommendations and eventually populate this framework. If it is acceptable to you, just one technical issue. I'm told by the secretariat, in case you need a printout which may be useful, it takes 10 to 15 minutes. Joy, still have problems? >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Just a question, a clarification, please. Perhaps it is an issue with the transcript or not quite hearing, I believe you suggested that after considering the document, we might need a framework for recommendations. And I just wanted to clarify that process because I believe at the end of yesterday, we agreed to consider gaps in relation to what issues proposed before making recommendations. So I'm just trying to clarify in relation to the proposed framework how that relates to the discussion and agreement we had at the end of yesterday. If you could clarify that for me, please. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. Yesterday we agreed that we should move forward with the document. I had a proposal to have some kind of test run on some part of the document to find out how it functions. It is my appreciation that we need additional work. So I would propose to have a kind of working party who would move forward with the document which has real -- really -- (no audio.) (No audio to the scribes.) >>CHAIR MAJOR: Is it okay? Okay. So in the document, we still have, I think, three columns which are empty. And it is not a one-hour job to populate it. So that's why I suggest to have -- to create a working party to propose mapping of issues, and this will be a working party basically probably most of the time by correspondence. It is up to you to find out if there is a possibility of creating some kind of collaborative platform. I'm sure there is. And naturally the working party should work in the same way as the working group, that is, with the contributions of observers. So that's the way I propose to move forward. Avri, you wanted to take the floor? >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, I did. Can I be heard? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, you can. >>AVRI DORIA: Because I can't hear you so I can't be sure but I can read. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. I guess I am among those who was recommending that we really needed to complete this work before moving to recommendations. However, understanding that that choice is not ours to make, I would like to point out and let the group know that a few of us within the civil society side have been working on an early set of recommendations to put a stake in the ground. So if we are going to move to discussing recommendations, we also have a set that I will send to the WGEC list during the next interval so that hopefully that can be discussed with any plans that are put there by others. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. Very, very useful and very helpful. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. And good morning to everyone. I understand we are now discussing for an hour how roughly the mapping could be done. So I would -- I think that present categories are good, kind of consolidates the laundry list and then specifies current activities and approach -- approaches. And after we do that, we need to convert it into what we have to come up with, and that is a study of the mechanisms, existing, needing to be strengthened and new ones. That's the core of the issue. And how these -- the list, therefore, relates to that. And we have agreed that we are not going to come up with answers to those public policy questions but only to the extent that they lead us to the institutional requirements. So as we started to discuss, I think we need to reach -- it's good to kind of clarify the purpose of this exercise and I understand the purpose is somewhat to validate what has already been observed in Section 60 of Tunis Agenda, that there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanism. Now that's where the whole enhanced cooperation discussion starts. So we are kind of validating that and also adding the facts and wisdom of the last nine years after WSIS. So while I was thinking and also like Virat said yesterday about whether issues are local or global, there is a series of filters we can put on -- and figure out what kind of institutional requirements are needed. The first is to judge whether these are public policy issues. These are Internet-related public policy issues. Second, we judge whether they are international or global. Third, we judge whether some institutions are already dealing with them in a substantive manner. And then we judge whether some of these issues are being dealt by some institutions but not adequately and not in a holistic manner, something Ambassador from Brazil has been insisting, that even if issues have been dealt, some of the issues are interconnected with other issues and holistic treatment requires some kind of new possibilities. And then next category is of issues which have been called orphan issues in some of the submissions. I don't like that term. But we are talking about issues which more or less are very new and have more likely possible right now institutional home. So that's it. So if we are doing this to each of the issues, even it is rough, we don't have to agree on each element belonging to one or two. It is enough that we find bunches under each and then we start talking of the institutional requirements, enhancements or new possibilities against each. Thank you. I can get this list to the main list, e-list, and then people can see it. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. I think it will be extremely useful if you did that. Your analysis, I think, is very close to the common understanding. Some may have different ideas. Phil? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Good morning. I'm not one for new ideas. I leave that to others better than I. But I just seek clarification as to your proposal for a working party or an ad hoc group, call it what you will, as to how you see that working going forward from this meeting in advance of our next meeting realizing that it's not that long a wait. May sound like it. Three months, 12 weeks, maybe 14 weeks. So it would be good if you could share with us your thoughts as to how you see that time being used and how that group would work. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for being practical. [ Laughter ] Naturally, there should be some kind of leader of this working party or ad hoc group or coordinator. Let's call it coordinator. And the working group would be eventually a correspondence group or it may have conference calls, but there will be a rolling document to which all interested parties can contribute with the end of filling the gaps. When I say "gaps," I mean in the sense of filling the empty columns and come up with a kind of final draft which will be submitted to this group for further discussions and approval. Now, as for who is going to be the coordinator is up to you. It will be on a voluntary basis. And whoever would like to join this working party or ad hoc group is free to do so. I have no influence on that. So probably it will be a good idea to start with the beginning who is going to head this -- who is going to coordinate and I need volunteers. I definitely would have a preference someone from the group, from the working group. Phil? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Into a dire space, but if you're calling for a volunteer, I'm happy to lead and take guidance from the group as to what I should be writing. So I'm happy to act as the convener of that correspondence group. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. So it's basically a coordination task to -- and I would invite all of you to join the group, ad hoc group. I would like you, Phil, lastly to give some working modalities as for the ad hoc group. Let it be a correspondence -- probably the Secretariat can set up a correspondence site, reflector, or if you think of other means, eventually a collaborative platform, that would be fine as well. Joy, you wanted to take the floor. Joy? >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to reach out to also volunteer to support Phil and to thank him for his willingness to step forward and just to say I'm also willing to help volunteer to help assist, if needed. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I'm happy that you volunteer. Probably there's room. There's enough work to be done for 2, even for 40. So we are undertaking a really big task. Yes, Virat. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chair, two points. One, I think we had some volunteers yesterday, including some observers on here who had sort of offered to help and you said you would take that under consideration, so I think at some stage if you could get a verdict on that, that would be helpful because we need many hands on this one, especially those who are passionate and are willing to do this and have responded to the question in great detail. The second point, I just want to clarify because Parminder has laid out the steps and I had sort of put out a five-step process yesterday, I just want to make sure that we're clear there is a distinction because what was stated yesterday, with your permission I'll state that again, is remove the duplicates which has already been done, judge whether the issue falls under internet governance talk, enhanced cooperation, third, whether it's an issue that requires domestic treatment or needs to be dealt at a sort of global level. Third is the WGEC plus classification which is proposed by the distinguished delegate from India, and the last was whether the existing processes exist or need to be strengthened or any other options that need to be discussed. So if that is not -- is that what we are following or do we have a -- more edification of that? I just want to be -- and I think the House sort of had a broad agreement, I suppose, on that. Are we think anything different? And the second point is -- the third point is, do we -- the working group can't go after all the issues at the same time. Some sort of a prioritization might be required. So perhaps the step six, which is in terms of timelines and prioritization on which of the issues that need addressing first and which can wait, I think that will need to be done. You know, and we can talk more about why that is important now or later, but I think that is an important step, because we already have 100-odd issues, and even after filtering it there are lots of issues. So I just wanted to place that. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Virat. I'll start from the very end. And I would like to encourage all stakeholders, including governments naturally, to participate in this exercise. And the reason for that is very simple and very evident to me. We are talking about enhanced cooperation and we are talking about the roles of government. With other stakeholders probably if we are going to discuss it, government's participation is crucial. That's why I suggest again that the governments would like to participate in this exercise. Now, as for the methodology or the steps you suggested, it's -- I think it's agreeable, probably within the group during the working process, you will find some adjustments. I can't really imagine that from the outset you know exactly what you're going to do. Probably it will be modified and probably some other ideas could be taken on board and you will find that some ideas you have suggested are not of that importance. So that's how I see as for the timeline. For me it's important that we have the kind of consolidated document for the next meeting. How you prioritize it, naturally, it's coming from our mandate, that is enhanced cooperation. So basically we have to concentrate on that, and it is my assessment from the meeting that the governments have concerns about their role in the Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. So basically priority for me in this respect. Having said that, naturally all stakeholders are invited to (indiscernible). Brazil, please. Oh, Marilyn, you were first. I'm sorry. You're always first. >>MARILYN CADE: That's good. You guys are looking at me for Thanksgiving, U.S. Thanksgiving holiday. I think I may be in Hungary. Thank you, Chair. I wanted to build on trying to be very practical and pragmatic about how to use the mapping document and make it simpler, while maintaining its depth and richness. I took a look this morning with the advice of some colleagues about the WGIG categories and I'm -- I think maybe you have them available. I might ask you to read them out. I was thinking one way we might think about simplifying this would be to put the -- and we could quickly do this as a small group of volunteers, kind of -- or we could do it after the fact, take the very long list of categories and put them, to the extent possible, under these four headings which I'm going to ask, if you don't mind, for you to read. And then if we added just one or two other categories, we would have four to six big categories with subtopics underneath them. And that, I think, would allow us to be much more effective in how we work. So if I might, if you don't mind, Baher, if you could read them, I think you had them pulled up, and there are just four. And then I have one final comment. >>BAHER ESMAT: Okay. Yeah, there are four categories. One, issues relating to infrastructure and management of critical Internet resources, including administration of the domain names, IP addresses, root server systems, technical standards, peering, telecommunication infrastructures. Two, issues relating to the use of the Internet, including spam, network security, and cybercrime. Three, issues that are relevant to the Internet but have an impact much wider than the Internet, such as intellectual property rights. Four, issues relating to developmental aspects, in particular capacity building. >>MARILYN CADE: So I'm not -- you know, particularly I think we've got to keep the richness of the bullets that have been prepared by our team but I think we also need some headings because when we all go home, we have to introduce this document to folks that are not immersed in it. And being able to say to them there are five to six major categories and here are the sum categories I think will be a much more effective way for us to be able to use the document. And then, when we develop recommendations, we will need to be probably particularizing looking at the subpoints. I'm not suggesting that we would make recommendations only on the main headings. I do think we will need to make recommendations that are specific to the subpoints because the stage of evolution or activity will vary depending on the subpoint. So that was my -- the first point I wanted to make, Chair. And then the second point I wanted to make goes back to, I thank Mr. Rushton for volunteering to be a coordinator/convener. Sounded like Joy was volunteering to be a co-convener/coordinator. And I think if there were -- it were possible to pass around here and then post to the WGEC list a sign-up sheet for those who want to volunteer to be in what I will call the mapping group, it -- that would be one step. But I think we also ought to take a few minutes to meet, and maybe we could meet ad hoc at lunch, to kind of sort through what do we think -- how do we think this -- these procedures are going to -- going to work. Because we're going to be widely distributed over the next 10 to 12 weeks and we could try to come up with an idea of how it might work and what the calendar might look like for us to be able to work together online. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. It's very useful, as always. Just getting back to what Phil asked me about the timeline, probably it would be a good idea to set some kind of intermediate target dates in order to avoid some rush at the very end of the three-month period. So probably it would be nice to have some kind of intermediate document around middle of January to know where we are, how we are doing. And then have some kind of final draft for the meeting itself. Before I give the floor to Phil, Brazil, you asked for the floor. >>BRAZIL: Thank you. Very briefly, just to agree with the idea that the work of the group should be guided or should have a parameter of the five steps that were proposed, I think both by Parminder and by -- by Phil. I think they have a lot of convergence and the core ideas are there. And also to indicate the willingness of -- the interest of my delegation to participate in the group, to support the group, and to provide input also to that priority -- prioritizing of the issues in other areas. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. I think it's -- it's some example that should be followed. Phil, you are recognized. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Just to go back to the timeline issue that you raised and to give people something to ponder on before we meet later today, I would suggest a first draft -- first run-through of the process to have been completed by about the first week in January. And to give people in this group time to review the great work that the correspondence group will do -- I sow that seed in your mind -- to have completed that by at least two weeks prior to your meeting. So we will complete it by -- if we start on the 24th of February, we will complete the work by the 12th of February. So with those -- >> [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >>PHIL RUSHTON: Complete it by the 24th -- by the 12th of February. That's two weeks. >> [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. I really appreciate it and I think that's a reasonable approach. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I was going to say is already captured by the distinguished ambassador from Brazil. We are willing to work in this working group or correspondence group. But as stated, the terms of reference or the parameters for this group has to be very clear set before this group starts. Especially that there will be nowhere physical meetings that -- I mean, an agreement or a guided approach can be taken. What has been stated by Parminder and Virat, that we have to put in this meeting for that correspondence group what are they going to do. For example, as is stated, what are the priorities of these public policy issues or these issues or what is the (indiscernible) issues that has been dealt. Maybe before that, is this a public policy issue or not, then what is the priorities of prioritizing these issues. Then has it been dealt with or not. Has it been adequately dealt or addressed or not. And then to identify the gap in order to be able to see what kind of an action is required in establishing a mechanism or a mechanism needs to be established or enhanced, something in the -- in the existing mechanism. But these parameters has to be set in this meeting, otherwise different views will come in the correspondence group through emails and it might be difficult to come up with a very consolidated outcome from this group. And we have full confidence with Mr. Phil, and he has been chairing so many working parties and what's the good thing this time he will not have a (indiscernible) after having it online. Thanks. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Majed. We have already set out the terms of reference. So probably the only thing we have to do is go back to the scripts and just formulate it. Provided everybody feels comfortable with that. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: I think that we need -- we really don't have much differences and I understand that there are two kinds of categorization that Avri mentioned and both can be accommodated, even in the existing Excel sheet. There is one column which says "consolidated grouping" and that is by subject area which can follow whether it is a CIS (phonetic) group or whatever development issues, more or less that we get classification plus something else. And the last column is status. And we all know the status is important because that directly relates to our mandate of what has to be done. And under status is the categories which I had mentioned which are about, you know, whether it is this, what has been done, what needs to be done, et cetera, et cetera. So I think both columns exist to accommodate both kinds of categories in the existing Excel sheet. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. We think that it's good to build on the work that has already been done. So the idea of categorizing these issues under the categories that were agreed by the Working Group On Internet Governance, the four categories, would be a good start. Then we can see if there is a need for any additional categories. But we think that it's important not to duplicate work too much and to build on what has already been issued. When it comes to the working group or working party or whatever we want to call it, first of all, we would like to be part of that as well. We would also like to say that we agree with those before us that said that it's important with the -- in terms of reference for this working group. And we are not so sure that, for example, this working party will be able to prioritize between different public policy issues. Because that could be an issue, I think that could be quite contentious, what do we think are important public policy issues. That varies quite a lot, I think, from stakeholder to stakeholder. So my suggestion is that the Secretariat would maybe draft a very short document on -- that describes terms of reference and then we could discuss that later, maybe here today, so that everyone feels truly comfortable with the terms of reference and what tasks we are giving this group. I think for us, at least, that would be -- would give us much comfort. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Let me make it clear that the correspondence group is in no way to replace the working group itself. Probably takes its mandate from the working group, meaning as well that it doesn't take over the responsibilities of this working group. So probably the -- as Sweden mentioned, the prioritizing is an issue for the working group itself. So probably it would be too ambitious to give this task and responsibility to the correspondence group. Having said that, they may come up with suggestions and proposals, but the decision will be within the group. Joy, you wanted to take the floor. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to support the tenor of the conversations and points and to make two points. One is about the proposed categories. I do have some strong concerns about limiting ourselves to the WGIG categories, being the clear mandate to this working group is to consider (indiscernible) and I fear that by limiting ourselves to the WGIG categories we will not adequately capture the need and many blossoming issues that are affected in the submissions that we get. So I would suggest that we continue to think about the categories, and I note, for example, that some submissions had categories in them, the Big Bits submission, for example, with a range of different categories for these public policy issues which perhaps with the opportunity to reflect back to this working group might be useful. So I would ask (indiscernible) when we go to work on this task be given some flexibility in that regard. With specific regard to I would just make -- I agree with the point made about some terms of reference for the task, but I think rather than being focused on the activities, it be focused on the output, what is it that as a working group we need this task to bring back to us. I think that would be very productive in the limited time available. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. Virat, you want to take the floor. >> [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Oh,U.S. Sorry. You're in the Switzerland's shadow. >>UNITED STATES: We're happy to be in the shadow of the Swiss mountains. Thank you, Chairman. [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >>UNITED STATES: We certainly want to state clearly our support for this mapping effort, and of course we'll be involved and supply what we can. And we want to be in that position because we think we really need this. We said yesterday, it's true today, we think that we need to know where we are to figure out where we're going. Chairman, for us, this mapping exercise will create a record, if you will, of information that will then be very helpful for us, we hope, to deal with priority issues. And we know that our -- some priority issues will be difficult. But in any event, this mapping exercise should -- should support the effort of this group. We very much appreciate your clarification, but this map -- this mapping group that's going on certainly isn't going to replace the deliberations of this group so that they hopefully will be bringing back all of this excellent information and then convening as a group again and hopefully making progress on what some have called the priority interest. Thank you very much. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, U.S. And thank you, Switzerland. Virat. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chairman, two quick clarifications, since I had mentioned WGIG yesterday I think to the point that the distinguished delegate from India has made yesterday, but this morning I did sort of improve on that by suggesting WGIG+ categories. So I agree with Joy that, you know, that session of yesterday we had, I think, conclude on this morning may not have been noticed in that fashion. But I agree with the point that she's making and I think we -- most of us agree on that. The second was the point that was made from the distinguished delegate from Sweden and then referred to by the U.S. about prioritization. When I mentioned that as a six-step prioritization, it wasn't for the working party, it was really for the group to look at after the results come in and what kind of work this group can look at as a whole because really that decision should rest where everybody is involved in a bigger discussion. So I just wanted to clarify those two points. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Well, after this discussion -- I haven't finished yet. After this discussion I will ask the Secretariat to draft the terms of references and bring it back to the group. And probably after finalizing the terms of references the group may start having informal consultations during lunchtime -- I'm sorry to dispose of your during lunchtime. You have heard it. So I think this is the way forward, and I am happy that many governments would like to participate and I would encourage all governments who are present and who have interest to participate in this work because I think it contributes very much to the work of this working group. Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the point I was going to make was already captured in your last speech. So I just wanted to follow-up on what Saudi Arabia and Sweden have indicated, that it would leave us more comfort if we could have clarity on these terms of reference. And as we listen to the remote participants, Joy, it is clear, for example, that in regard to categories there might be different ideas if we do not spell out clearly. And I take the point that there is a richness in the debate and that might develop ideas or improve categories, but this would, I think, lead us to lose a lot of time in this working group, this working party around, let's say, conceptual ways, so I think if we can come out of this meeting with a very clear terms of reference, as you have indicated, I think this will assist the working party and have very efficient work in such a short time frame, I think it would be -- it will assist us in the process. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. Two quick points. Firstly, we also wish to convey our strong confidence in Phil, and I'm sure -- and also to express that we would be very much happy to assist in any manner as a delegation. And the second, this eminent suggestion that we have to take as the categories should be WGIG+ because otherwise we could be accused of still having a 2004 mind-set rather than a 2014 mind-set, I think. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. Mexico? >>MEXICO: Thank you, Chair. Just to support what the ambassador from Brazil said, it is very important to leave this room with a clear mandate for this other group and especially for our experts back in capital so they have a clear idea what the work will be and how to proceed. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Marilyn, then Parminder. >>MARILYN CADE: Let me see. Since I was one of the people who talked about WGIG+ plus, let me see if I can clarify what I was meaning. I think we should drop after we finish this discussion any reference to WGIG+ plus and just talk about having a short list of headings which we work under and so we would no longer refer to them as WGIG. To respond to your comment, we wouldn't say WGIG+ in the future, we would just call them the agreed headings or something. But I was just proposing we use the substance. And I think that's also what Virat was suggesting and Baher and others. So in the future, we wouldn't go out of here saying WGIG+, we would say consolidated headings with subpoints. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So probably we can come up with WGEC categories. So we start a new era. [ Laughter ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: I agree with Marilyn. And I think in my understanding there is already a resolution, and I will try to give my perception of it as the secretariat settles down to frame -- draft the framework of reference, terms of reference. We have a category of consolidated grouping which is what Marilyn is talking about, which was referred to as WGIG+, is now the grouping which is substantive grouping. The next column is "current activities and approaches." Who wants to try to write what does that mean? The last is status. And the status grouping is different from the substantive groupings which are by areas. And I think the status is still needed as the reference point for going forward in our discussion. So I think in this matrix, I understand everything which has been said. Seems to be accommodated. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Avri. Avri? >>AVRI DORIA: I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on it. I would like to support those who are suggesting that there be a wider set of WGEC categories. And I would actually like us to empower the group to basically work on that set of categories and then come back to the larger group with an indication of those categories. I think that in the discussion of issues item by item, being constrained to a short set that is determined a priori, could make the task much more difficult. So I would like to support those who have recommended, I believe India and others that have recommended the open set to be used. I also would like to sort of indicate that while, I think, this will be of great and indispensable use for us in finalizing any set of recommendations, I also think the work will be very valuable and an outcome from our larger group to the general ways forward for Internet governance. So I think the work should be seen in a larger light of more than just a tool for us, that I would like to suggest that it would be one of our outcomes. Finally, I'd also like to suggest that assuming that this working party will be working in the interim on some schedule and in some manner that they basically give the whole WGEC list -- I have trouble pronouncing it. It sounds like so many other things when people say it. I'm not sure what we're saying. So I'm sticking to the W-G-E-C. I would like to suggest that they give the list of us, the entire group, periodic updates on where they've gotten and how it's going so that we can all keep track of it and anybody that feels their viewpoints are not being represented because they haven't been participating in the smaller group have the opportunity to then jump in somehow and add their voice. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. I'm absolutely sure that you will be part of the correspondence group, and naturally you are on the working group. Now, what is -- I can see no -- no one asking for the floor. So can I conclude that we agreed on the establishment of this correspondence group? We kind of agreed on the draft -- on the rough terms of references. I would like to ask Phil and those who proposed terms of references to work closely with the secretariat during the coffee break finalizing the terms of references. And if you have no other issues on the correspondence group, I think this is a well-deserved coffee break now. And I propose to have it limited to 20 minutes. After 20 minutes, we come back and hopefully we can discuss the terms of references for the correspondence group and eventually we can also finalize the timeline for the work. Thank you. [ Break ] [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good afternoon. Can I ask you to take your seats, please. Good afternoon. Before we start discussing the terms of reference for the corresponding groups, group of -- our working group, let me get back to the date of the next meeting. I had an update from the ITU working group -- council working group's schedule. And it seems to me that the 24th -- the week starting from the 24th is an appropriate time for us to do our third meeting. I know that most of you would like to have a four-day -- or some of you would like to have a four-day meeting. I still have a preference for the five-day meeting. So let me propose the 24th -- the week the 24th through the 28th. And I will ask the secretariat to check the availability of rooms here in the U.N. I am updated that the request has already been placed. A decision will be made as far as the availability of rooms here in mid December. But I hope this is agreeable to all of us. No, it's a room. It is an internal problem. We shall have our meeting. I don't know in which room. Hopefully in this room. I believe it's a relatively good setting. So let's get back to the terms of reference for the correspondence group of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Phil, can you tell us what are the proposed terms of references? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. The terms of reference of the correspondence group is available in paper form at the front of the room if you have not already seen it. Now that we've agreed to terms of reference, Chairman -- [ Laughter ] [ Silence ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: I'm really pleased to see that everybody's for the paperless work. Having said that, electronic copies have been sent out as well so in case you want to fall back to the good old electronic form, then you're welcome. Please continue. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. So you have before you a draft set of terms of reference which I will walk through. I already have some comments and some amendments, so there will be a revised version. But I think if we can capture those as we go along, that will be useful. So starting at Number 1, which is always a very good place to start: The correspondence group will work electronically. If necessary, conference calls will be held; but it is my intention that the main method of working will be e-mails. Two: The correspondence group is open to all stakeholders, as you indicated in your initial presentation this morning, Chair. Three, the correspondence group will provide three update reports to the WGEC Chair and mailing list. Those will be at the end of November, this year; the beginning of January 2014; and the end of January 2014. Again, I think that was a request made by a participant in this meeting earlier this morning. The correspondence group will provide an initial output in the first week of January 2014 and a final document for consideration by this group by the 12th of February, 2014. That then gives you 12 days, Chair, and for our colleagues here to review, comment, criticize, rewrite or do what they wish to do to the document. The correspondence group will review the identified public policy issues into the WGEC list. We created this WGEC list just before coffee. I would say -- and just to make it clear, that the identified public policy issues comes from the revised spreadsheet that has been created and distributed here today. So that would be our starting point. B: The correspondence group will identify where there are activities associated with the issues in that list. It will also identify, if possible, the status of mechanisms and any limitations therein to the mechanisms. It will also attempt to identify the gaps in order to ascertain what type of action is/may be required. The point being there for C and D, Chair, as you will see from point 6, is that we will attempt to do these activities as input into your meeting in February. However, where the issue cannot reach consensus, it will be referred to the -- that issue will be referred back to this group. And I should make it clear, and have one amendment there, that what will be referred back will be the various positions taken on the correspondence group. So if there are five views expressed, you will get five options, Chair. You're more than welcome, sir. The correspondence group -- and I wish to make this explicitly clear -- does not replace the WGEC. We are there to be a tool of the WGEC and nothing more. And just to make it formal, Chair, we say that these have been agreed by your group as of this date so that there are no misunderstandings. I, therefore, put forward these terms of reference for your approval and the approval of colleagues with the two amendments that I have suggested, the one saying that the identified public policy issues in 5A is the spreadsheet that has been developed in this group and that any issue that is not reached among consensus will have the options referred back to the working group. So with those two amendments, Chair, I offer you the document. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil and secretariat. It was a good job. Any comments, observations, remarks? Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: While I think the list is really exhaustive and we really don't need to kind of address issues, therefore, it may not be completely completely complete. However, if there are real -- somebody really has a pressing need to put any issue on it that wasn't before -- but that's not what I'm intending to do because somebody referred -- and I think Avri did -- that it could also be a substantive outcome in some way from the group. And, therefore, the public policy list should not be frozen in any manner. Though, I would greatly advise we don't add too many to it. I was not really sure with Phil's amendment whether the amendment, whether the amendment one referred to this kind of thing or it could be the identified public policy issues. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, Phil? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. The issue becomes if somebody comes to this correspondence group with a new issue, it will not be the correspondence group that decides to add that issue. That must be your group. That is your responsibility, Chair. I'm sorry to say. We will only work with the list. We are a tool of this group. Therefore, if somebody has an issue that is burning a hole in their pocket that they wish to have added to the list of issues that will be considered by the correspondence group, it needs the approval of your group. We are a closed user group in the sense you are giving us a task to work to. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. That's exactly how I think. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chair. First of all, thanks to Phil for working this out. This is very useful. And I think by large we could go along with these terms of reference. Just a minor, minor issue, I think in para 5C talking about identifying, if possible, the status of mechanisms and any limitations therein, we might put different things into the word "mechanism." So we are wondering if we could expand that a little bit to "fora" and "processes." That's just a minor comment. But, otherwise, we feel confident with these terms of reference. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Is my understanding correct that under "mechanism," we may understand as well the different fora? Yes, Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: If the meeting is agreeable, Chair, I will make that amendment. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. Ellen? >> ELLEN BLACKLER: I would support that and add it would also include activities, those kinds of things that business is doing to fill some of the gaps that aren't really a fora. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, U.S. U.S. >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Chairman. Just a question. Where we say the status of mechanisms, how should we read the word "status"? >>CHAIR MAJOR: I understand it -- Phil, please. >>PHIL RUSHTON: My understanding, if I perhaps can offer an opinion, would be -- it would be a narrative describing the activities, the fora, the processes, and the mechanisms associated with any given issue in that list. So it would be as comprehensive as we could make it. I would look to make it, as I say, descriptive rather than judgmental. That would be for the process to be taken here. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. For me, Number 7 is the bottom line; that is, the correspondence group does not replace the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. So we have a clear idea about the terms of references. I think it's mostly acceptable. And I can see you, Parminder. I can see you. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Saudi Arabia raised the fact earlier but since I'm responding to Phil's point, can I go ahead? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yeah. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. There was a discussion earlier about the status being what. And I tried to describe certain elements of it. And I don't think it is a narrative thing. It is a category thing and categories being passed to the WGEC list as well. And I remember there was a lot of support that we need to convert the issues to the requirements of what needs to be done and, therefore, we were categorizing into like: The orphan issues being met but not adequately being met, some institution is fully dealing with it. That kind of categories were the status. And it could be inclusive -- stakeholders' participation inclusive of all governments' participation. There are processes globally which are public policy bodies that are not inclusive of all governments. And there are processes which are not inclusive of stakeholders. So the status is to find out what those mechanisms look like with reference to what then needs to be done which is the mandate of the working group. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to thank Phil for this draft of terms of reference. To make it very easy to me, I'm trying to imagine that I'm now part of this working group and I have these terms of reference and I would see if it is clear to go with these terms of reference. I heard that -- I mean, I understand that there is no possibility to add in the correspondence group any more issues. But, for example, what do we mean exactly by "review and identify the public policy issues in the WGEC list." What exactly -- reviewing in terms of what? I mean, is that -- I mean, we need to be clear when we say "review and identify the public policy," are we going to do an exercise in regards to these lists? Are we going to combine them? I mean, we need to clarify this and then we say "identify where there are activities associated with the issues in the list." Okay. We don't want to say, okay, there is and there is not. I mean, it has to be said also if these activities associated with adequately addressing these issues. I mean, it's not like a matter of answering yes or no, especially -- I'm trying to raise this not to involve in this discussion in the correspondence group. In regards to the "identify, if possible, the status of mechanisms and any limitation therein," I think the idea is to identify, okay, the status of the mechanisms, if it is adequately addressing or not and if there is actually global arrangements to address this issue. It has to be there. I mean, is there global arrangements? Is there a mechanism existing to address this issue? This group has to identify this thing. I would start here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I really want in the future interventions to hear the text, not the criticism, but text you suggest to be included or to exclude. I think we are past the time to give statements. Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Just to clarify my comment earlier, in respect to the distinguished delegate from Saudi Arabia, I didn't say that issues could not be added to the list but if issues are to be added to the list, then it has to be agreed by your committee, Chair, not by the correspondence group. I take note of the comments and clarifications sought on 5B and 5C and would take guidance from this group as to what text they would like to see there so that we could adequately capture the text. I have to say, Chair, that 5A, B, C and D was taken from the text that we're seeing on the screen and were the nice and wonderful words from the Saudi Arabian delegate. So if I'm not captured that right, I do apologize. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. Joy. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Phil, for your good work. I just have three brief points. The first is in relation to point Number 2 of the terms of reference. The word "stakeholders" there, I take it this includes not only stakeholder members of the working group but also observers? I would just like clarification. Secondly, I'm a little troubled by the words in para 5D in relation to what type of action may be required. I think the word action could cause difficulties. I'm thinking, for example, of the United Nations Human Rights Council which is dealing with a number of public policy issues that have intimate related components. And I would find it difficult to imagine this working group might suggest action in relation to any gaps in the Council's mandates. I think it is a suggestion that this working group might focus on that, that there would be some serious concerns with it. My suggestion is that instead of "action," instead of the use of the word "action" there, we might say "recommendations" so that we focus on what recommendations this working group might want. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Joy. As 4.2, "stakeholder" means what it means in the sense of what we mean by it in this working group and what we meant by it when we sent out the questionnaire. As for your remark concerning "action," I fully agree with that. It probably should eventually be changed to "recommendations" or fully left out for consideration by the working group itself because the working group is tasked to give the recommendations. But I leave it up to you. Next on the list. Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Actually my question -- I guess that was -- that's the point that is exactly why I took the microphone. I wanted to ask. As I understood this, this is preliminary and preparatory work and the drafting of recommendations would come after we've concluded this work and would come from the body as a whole. So I guess I'm -- I might just modify D to say "attempt to identify gaps in order to ascertain what might be required" without -- because it could be an action but I think the drafting of recommendations is going to be done in the body as a whole. And I would prefer that the mapping group not start actually getting into drafting recommendations. I think we actually have quite a bit to discuss. And that takes me to an example. When I heard our colleague from Saudi Arabia and also Parminder, I was thinking about under B -- 5B, the mapping group would be talking about activities associated with the issues, looking first to the contribution submissions that have been made but then also based on the participations in the mapping group adding additional documented -- and I would think we need to do that. So if we're looking at the submissions, then everyone has the validation of what's been suggested. But if we are going to -- and I think we need to -- add -- potentially using additional information, what additional activities, we should in the mapping group sort of document where we got that information. So I'm going to use a specific example that was mentioned yesterday. The European Internet Observatory, which is still under development, is an emerging clearinghouse. And it will gather -- so if we were to add that as an emerging activity, I would expect to sort of document where the further information about that could be found. That then let's us continue to build our own shared understanding of the activities that are going on. We are, as the mapping group, I think, to Parminder's point, then going to be discussing about how satisfied we are in order to move on to D. And that will be a gap analysis which I think, again, we're going to have to document. And to Phil's point, we may end up with different documented options that get put forward to the group. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. I really would like to concentrate on the text we have in front of us and to try to finalize it. Probably when we clarify the responsibilities for the group and for the correspondence group and for the working group, we have already made a great step towards finalizing these terms of references. Phil, would you like to answer? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Certainly under A we should put the fact and clarify the fact that additional issues to be added would require the agreement of your group, as we have said. For 5D, the point about what type of actions may be required, the point is well made by delegates. I would say "attempt to identify the gaps in order for recommendations to be drafted by the WGEC" to make it very clear that we are just identifying the gaps. As we keep saying, Number 7 is the bottom line. We do not replace the WGEC. So I think these points are well made. The point as to -- in 5B identify where there are activities, I would say we should cite the source and, indeed, would provide text at the end of B to say "associated with" -- start again, "associated with the issues in the list and cite the source for such identification." Not the best English, I apologize. But I think it does the job. So there are some changes to 5A, B, C and D that have been identified. And, of course, Chair, it is also important to realize that we only have three months to do this work, failure to complete the work of the correspondence group will necessitate a five-day meeting in February because we will have to complete some of the work of the correspondence group in your meeting. However, I will endeavor with my colleague Joy from New Zealand to ensure that that is not the case. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Let me remind you that there's a weekend preceding our meeting in February and there is a weekend after the meeting. Yes, Phil? >>PHIL RUSHTON: I shall seek permission from my wife to attend. [ Laughter ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: So do I. [ Laughter ] Sweden, please. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chair. Very briefly, we can go along with the terms of reference as amended. And, I mean, if we would like to add some additional comfort, maybe we could add to para 7 something along the lines that would not replace the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and will not take any decisions pertaining to the mandate of the working group or something like that, if there is such need. I'm not sure there is such a need. Also just to answer very briefly to the comment mentioned, brought up -- the issue brought up by a colleague from Saudi Arabia, I think when it comes to the mapping, we feel that that should be a very factual thing, factual mapping of where are processes and where are issues are discussed, what are the issues and where are they discussed. But when it comes to the more sort of evaluation of this, the value judgment on whether or not one particular issue is adequately addressed, we think that that is better handled by the group itself as well as the priorities as we mentioned earlier. So that's our view. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. It is my understanding that there's a kind of general agreement with the amendments on the terms of reference. I still have Joy. Virat, you want to take the floor? >>JOY LIDDICOAT: I -- >>VIRAT BHATIA: My points have already been addressed. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. So, Joy, please. >>JOY LIDDICOAT: Just to say that my points have been dealt with. The only one, I just didn't hear a clear statement that (indiscernible) my volunteer to assist which seems unfeasible given the size of the task and the short time available. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you. I think, just to make it very clear, as you yourself has indicated, Chair, as with the questionnaire which went to all stakeholders so that this correspondence group is also open to all stakeholders. That is my understanding. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just heard that we can further delay the talking about the adequacy of addressing these issues and not in the correspondence group but in the meeting. If this is the case, I think there is no need for this correspondence group. Yesterday the respected ladies there did a wonderful job by doing this and they can continue by just doing and adding that what are the associated activities, if any, and there is no need to have a correspondence group if they are not going to tackle each of these policy issues and see if there is global arrangements to address them or not. And if it's adequately addressing them or not by either to find the gaps and then do the required action as a correspondence group which will come to your meeting then it will come out as recommendations as the meeting agrees later on. But if there is no task to go over this, I think we can just continue without a correspondence group. And before we approve this terms of reference, we -- if there is any amendments, we would like to see it in writing before we adopt this terms of reference. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. It is my understanding that the group will do its work in view of proposing to the working group recommendations or some -- some input for the recommendations. So, in fact, it is going to be extremely useful for the -- for the working group itself. As for the amendments in the written form, probably it can be done very quickly. But I think it has been made clear and there was -- I couldn't really hear many dissenting comments on the terms of references, so I had a feeling that we kind of agreed on these terms with the amendments. Iran, please. >>IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm seeking a point of clarification. I heard that this correspondence group is open to all stakeholders out of these -- I mean this group, just wanted to hear it from you, since this correspondent group is a part of the WGEC I don't think it's necessary to open it to all the stakeholders. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Iran. It was my idea to follow the way we have been working up until now, and I do intend to continue this way. We had received inputs from all stakeholder groups, which seem to be very useful, and we have taken them on board to discuss them, so I can see no reason why we can't continue this way. It made our work richer. It made our deliberations more wider, so I think this is the way to go forward. And I think most of the members of the group do agree to that. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I think I need to intervene. I was not planning to intervene, but I think it is required, I think, to make a few points. The first and the foremost is this working group has a diverse composition. There are member states, there are representatives of the private sector, the civil society. I think there are other groups, also. Now, if we embark upon a part of reaching a particular decision or recommendation, it was -- it was useful to receive inputs. I realize that during the first (indiscernible) if you want to call it. But the challenge here is every time we put out a -- a questionnaire or a set of issues, and if you want to go to the larger stakeholder process approach, we have no difficulties. But then we only have representatives in this working group precisely for this reason. And if they wish to go in their own individual capacity, let's say the private sector wish to go within themselves, they could further disseminate among their members and collect inputs but there are representatives to this working group. The purpose will be defeated if we every time -- and we cannot embark on this process every time, and the end result would be another 500 pages a compilation and then do what? I'm sorry to pose these very direct questions, but we need to have some brevity in what we are doing. And you rightly observed that we know the issues. We know the issues, and we are now trying to do a mapping exercise. I think it's no harm if we could define that the respective groups could in turn, in their own right, because there are representatives of that particular group of the stakeholders, could collect inputs and give it to the correspondence group. That would be an easy approach, rather than the correspondence group reaching out to all stakeholders and coming up with the bulk of information which we do not know where to head thereafter. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Can I have some text for -- to support your proposal? >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. The correspondence -- the correspondence group will be open to the members of the working group. In fact, we don't need one to -- we don't actually meant for the working group. It's a correspondence group of the working group. Which is required to -- which internally -- I mean, in its capacity they could seek other members' views. They're most welcome to do it. But within themselves, they reach certain conclusions or certain observations which is brought to the larger group. Thank you, sir. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is very important for us to have a very clear understanding of what this correspondence group is aimed to achieve. I don't see the work coming from this correspondence group as having, let's say, the kind of more political nature of or policy stated that is expected from this working group as a whole. I see the output of the correspondence group as a technical instrument, a tool for our work. And personally -- and I have made a point previously that personally I'm not feeling entitled to participate because I lack the expertise to engage in some of the issues. I think it is in our interest to have the best available expertise contributing to give out a very clear picture of where we stand with regard to each issue, what are the processes associated. I would be a little bit concerned if we maybe restrict the ability of people to contribute because we may be lacking some kind of input that might be necessary. And then, this will come up to the larger group and we will make the appropriate decisions as -- because we have the mandate, not the wider stakeholder community. But I think if we can it would -- see this as an input for our work, and then, of course, as a working group we have a particular mandate and we have the composition agreed that we should do it. I think maybe that could be a way out of -- of this. Again, I think the composition of this working group, I'm not sure if we have among us as complete expertise to cover all the areas and come up with all the -- or what I said maybe the X-ray of the situation. Then this will be an instrument for us as -- as the magical group to propose some kind of intervention. Thank you very much. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. Andres. >>ANDRES PIAZZA: Yeah, thank you very much. With regard to what the distinguished colleague of India was proposing, I guess I don't know which of the opinions of the rest of the group, the members of the group, but if we have that question was open to every stakeholder and we have observers that can be on site and also in the remote participation channels with access to the information available. And also we -- the possibility of providing inputs. And then we accept those observers to be able (indiscernible), for example, the mapping exercise and then the whole purpose of the working group and our -- of course, our philosophy should be -- should keep open. And I understand what Brazil says regarding the goals of the correspondence group. And to be honest, I would like to be -- I would prefer to have more clarity also regarding the goals of the correspondence group as well. But I think we shouldn't go back to discussion if -- that -- if the working group should be open or not because I guess at least I have -- I haven't seen any reason why we should go back there. We should have -- we already established that we want it to be open, right? Or not. I don't know. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Jimson. >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you very much, Chair. While I've been ruminating, I made a point and I would like to propose this text, if possible. With regard to item 2 of the terms of reference, the correspondence group is open to all WGEC stakeholders and accredited observers. So this correspondence group is of the working group, as the distinguished delegate from India underlined, and Iran. So this is what I would like to propose, the correspondence group is open to all WGEC stakeholders and accredited observers. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: I'm unmuting myself, so apologies for the pause. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to speak with those who are discussing the correspondence group being open and very much open in the same way that these meetings have indeed been open. And so I think it's very appropriate that we do that. I also want to point out that one of the reasons I believe that we were doing this correspondence group is because we felt that this was very essential work, that it was work that was a continuation of the process that came out of the comments we received from the wider stakeholder group community, and that it was work that we did not want to put in line for this particular committee, this particular group, but wanted it to be done in parallel. So I think it's very important that this group be able to do its work, to be able to reach out for the experience and other help that's needed. We see how much the observers have already contributed to this effort. We wouldn't be as close as we are now, I believe, without their incredible efforts, their overnight work, their over lunch work, and all of that. So I think we have to recognize that and keep that, that in. And in terms of this group being able to make evaluations, I think any initial evaluations that they may make are an aid to our work but are something that we, as a group, would be able to take and discuss. As Phil said in his discussion on all this, nothing they do is final. Everything they do is recommendations to this group as to how to proceed further. So I think any of the evaluation they make, whether it's on things like status, on things like adequacy of the mechanisms or the processes, I think we recognize that that is all work that we will need to review as a group and be able to modify and amend as necessary before taking this document forward. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. When we started the discussion about the participation of stakeholders the concern I heard was a very practical one from India and it was the eventual output -- the volume of the eventual output. And for me, it's a very reasonable argument. Probably we want to deal with documents which we can handle. Now, I'm turning to Phil, who has volunteered to this position. Can you give us some assurance that the volume of the output will be of a size which is understandable by humans? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. You do not ask for much. [ Laughter ] On a serious point, Chair, you want something by the 12th of February that is not an activity that we should treat lightly. I can empathize with the distinguished delegate from India about the volume of work. If we cast our minds back to the first meeting, a similar concern was expressed about the number of questionnaires that we would receive in response to making that open. I think we received 70 questionnaires and that was manageable. We have the public policy issues list that we started, we are going to go through and further categorize them against the WGEC list as opposed to the WGIG list -- somebody ought to change the acronyms. I think that it will be manageable. I do not anticipate people coming in with vast volumes of work. I could be wrong, but I think people actually maybe will provide the information going forward according to the process. I think it is -- if there is a large volume of work as a result of opening this up, I think that will make your task and the task of this group more rich in terms of the information that it has in front of it. And in that terms we will need five full days. But I think it is -- we are duty-bound, given the mandate that we have from the U.N. General Assembly, to do as good a job as we possibly can. And if that is volumes of information -- which I have to say I do not anticipate, given that we only have three months in which to gather this, so it's publication of, join our group, provide the information, collate the information -- it's not going to happen. But I think we shouldn't put barriers in the way in order for people to contribute if they have a desire, a wish, or indeed the information to do so. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. Well, let's keep the discussion on the level of -- on practicalities, and we have an assurance from the practical approach and basically that is the concern we all have. I didn't have any intervention concerning the kind of political considerations. So I would like to stop the debate on the terms of references. I'm really sorry for those who want to take the floor, but I think we have covered all issues, and the real issue is how we can move forward as a group ourselves. And that is the main thing. We have a team to facilitate our work, our next meeting. We have a promise that it will be a document which can be handled by us, which will have our work, and for me that is, you know -- so I would propose now for you to approve the modified terms of references as they are. So Saudi Arabia wants to take the floor, please. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said earlier, we want to see it in a text so we know exactly what are these terms of reference. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So let me propose the following, we come back after lunch and the text will be available. I propose a five-minute discussion on the text. A very precise discussion. If there -- if there are parts you don't like, you propose something else and we proceed. But there's a general agreement here in the room, what I can feel, that there's a need for this group, for the correspondence group, there's a need for the exercise. The exercise will result in proposals which we can take up on board and it will facilitate our work. Is it agreeable? Yes, Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. I will sit down with the Secretariat and get the text amended. We will circulate that to the mailing list rather than paper-based. I will be back in this room 30 minutes prior to the start of your meeting, should anybody have any comments or questions, so that we can further amend or make the proposals to amend so that we can meet your five-minute deadline. So I shall be back in here at half past 2:00 with people having any comments or questions. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. Last remark before we break, as I mentioned in the morning, I would like to proceed with the framework of our recommendations, so I would like from the proposal for the framework some text, and I would like to have some rudimentary recommendations for Group 4 and 5. If there are members who would like to proceed in this way, I would like to have the text as well. And in this spirit I wish you bon appetite and see you back at 3:00. [ Lunch Break ] [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good afternoon. Thank you for taking your seats. And I would like to thank you also for the hard work you did during lunchtime, those of you who have had discussions. And I understand that there are -- there's a proposal for the mandate of the correspondence group. I just want to remind you that before lunch break, we had a proposal which was amended. And now I would like to see the final result of the consultations. Can I ask Phil? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. Indeed the revised text, as we discussed this morning, was posted early in the lunch hour. So I thank the secretariat for their support in that process. As I also said prior to lunch, I was in this room from half past 2:00 to take comments on the amended text, and I have received some amendments to that text. So I will read those out, if you will allow me, Chair. So under 5A, there is a word to be inserted. And it says "now review the identified international public policy issues." So the word "international" has been proposed to be inserted. There is alternate text to B. It says -- excuse me. Excuse me -- "list where there are existing international mechanisms addressing the issues in the list." I will repeat again: "List where there are existing international mechanisms addressing the issues in the list." A proposal has been brought forward as an alternative to C, which is: "Identify the status of mechanisms, if any, whether they are addressing the issues." So C would now read: "Identify the status of mechanisms, if any, whether they are addressing the issues." And then in D, again, insertion after the term "gaps," it would say "attempt to identify the gaps and required action in order to ascertain." So the three words "and required action" have been proposed to be inserted, Chair. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. I have a general remark. I don't really want to see anything in the terms of reference which is taking over from the mandate of this group. The correspondence group is to have the work, not to replace, not to override the work of this working group. So any action is within the mandate of this group. I can see Marilyn. But I think, Parminder, you were first. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you. Chair, I would have to see this rewritten, but I have an immediate concern about limiting our work to using the word "international" rather than "Internet." I think our work is focused on Internet issues. And I want to be careful that we don't find ourselves -- and I'm just going to use an example. I think that some of the issues identified by those from civil society and others who were raising concerns from developing countries might -- if we're using "international," I think we may be missing the fact that we need to be -- in some cases, there will be a need to have a regional recognition of an issue that might be arising. So I would actually prefer that we use the word "Internet" rather than restricting it by using the word "international." >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. First, I would respond to Marilyn's proposal and I see the mention of enhanced cooperation in Tunis Agenda clearly refers to international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. And I think that is our mandate, and we should stick to our mandate. Otherwise, we will go too diffuse and the idea is to see what are the gaps in international Internet-related public policies and, if there are gaps, what to do about it. The prior issue on which I wanted to comment was about the composition of the group. I am for extending all kinds of outreaches to all levels and keeping it open. And if you wish to go for another round of information seeking, I'm very happy to have that because it will be more focused information. My concern is that out of four, probably different in the new amended text, but more or less still I'm talking from the old text are the four activities or mandates of the group, three are evaluative. They consist of making a judgment. Now, collection of information -- and this group being a repository or recipient of information from all quarters is one kind of activity and that should be and can be very open. I'm not sure how a huge group would be taking evaluative judgments. And my concern is entirely practical, that it won't happen and we will be back in the group with a list without being able to close the gaps which I thought was the primary purpose of making a small group; that when we come back, there's more clarity about certain judgments around different gaps and then we can work quickly. And if we are not able to assemble an effective group, we would not be able to do those evaluative functions. And that's the concern, if we can separate information sourcing from the evaluative aspects of this group and organize the group in a manner which it is effective to do both the works properly. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: As I mentioned earlier, the mandate of the working group hasn't changed. So in case we are thinking in terms much actions, recommendations or evaluations, it is within the mandate of the working group, not within the mandate of the correspondence group. I just wanted to make it clear. In case you have doubts, I will put it down in my report and probably we can be done with that. Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My intervention is more or less in the same sense of your last intervention. I see the outcome of this correspondence group as being a factual document that will assist us as a working group to move ahead and provide and elaborate recommendations and make an analysis on this. So I think this is important because the contributions that are expected from to be us, from an expanded group of stakeholders, I think, as I have said before, I think we benefit to have enough expertise and information coming from other parties. But those contributions should not entail analysis or lengthy elaborations on the issues. I think we are expecting also very factual information, very focus-oriented inputs. I think this must be made clear. Otherwise, we'll end up, the coordinator, with extensive pieces of paper from which he will have to pick what is relevant. What is relevant here are the factual information, one that will allow us to have a clear view, an x-ray, but not an analysis of this. As you have indicated, Mr. Chair, we are not expecting proposals of actions, recommendations, just this picture upon which this working group will work. This is our understanding. I think that might be the understanding of the room. Otherwise, it should be specified because it will assist the working group in its preparation. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. I strongly urge you to follow the wise advice from Brazil, and let's move forward. We may spend half of the night here discussing words in the terms of references for the correspondence group, which is a technical group, and which you will provide input to us and it is up to us to evaluate, to give proposals to recommendations. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. And I wish to thank Phil for certain amendments which he proposed. I think they're very valid amendments which have slightly made the task more focused, number one. Secondly, to look at what Marilyn was saying about "Internet," the way to fix this is we strictly go by what's said in the Tunis Agenda. If we could add three words in 5A, "international public policy issues pertaining to Internet," I think that is what the text is actually. So then they were talking of Internet and again international public policy issues. And in any case, our objective is core towards such policies only and also to identify whether there is a role at the international level, not at the national level, because the task of this group is to look at that particular dimension. And the second one which is, again -- I don't want to open this discussion, but Jimson had made one very important amendment before our lunch break in para 2. Are we looking at it or are we going to shelve that? I just want to know that. Of course, it is clear it is not reflected so it is not there. But I thought that was a fairly good suggestion. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. Before we went to lunch, I really urged you, especially governments, to participate in the work of this correspondence group. So I rather concentrate on these issues than on the particular words. The sense of this correspondence group is to provide information to our group. And if governments do participate, I think we have a good hope to come up with recommendations which are beneficial for the governments. I can see Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. Very briefly, we support what was said by the Brazilian ambassador. We think this should be a very factual tool that we can continue to work on and base our work on. And the only small comment that we have in that regard is that we think that it should not be within the mandate of this correspondence group to evaluate whether or not something has been adequately addressed or not addressed in a specific fora, process, or mechanism. Otherwise, we are very thankful to the hard work that Phil has put into this and with contributions from all colleagues. And we think we can work on this basis. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Phil? Saudi Arabia, you want to take the floor? Virat after Phil, Japan, and United States. And I would like to close the discussion because I think that we are very, very close and probably in the last two hours we should do some real work. I'm really sorry to say that. You have been doing a great job up to now. The discussions were extremely good. I really enjoy them. And we are getting closer to it. But after deliberation of the terms of references, I would like to have some kind of framework for the recommendations on one hand and eventually if some members think that they could offer some recommendations, then I would like to see them. So, Phil, please. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Just two comments, one to respond to the distinguished delegate from India. I would like to claim credit for the words but, unfortunately, I cannot. I'm merely the scribe. The proposed changes came from my distinguished colleagues from Saudi Arabia in the 30 minutes I had set aside. So if there is credit to be given to the terms used, please direct them to my colleagues from Saudi Arabia. The other issue -- and it goes back to something that you said, Chair, and to the Ambassador from Brazil which is in 13 weeks -- and I keep emphasizing 13 weeks -- there is going to be no effort to judge anything. It is merely factual. I do not have time to sit down and evaluate what I hope will be input. And I hope you will reflect that in your minutes, Chair, that all I will do, along with colleagues who participate, is reflect back into your group the facts that we are given. Where there is agreement on the facts, great. Where there is no agreement on the facts, then alternate views as expressed on the correspondence group will be presented to this group to discuss and debate. I do not intend to get into the middle of an argument. That is not my intention, believe me. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Very grateful for that. Thank you. So you left me in the middle. [ Laughter ] Okay. I can see United States and Japan and then probably we can close. >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Chairman. Don't want to -- to take the time simply to come in to support your approach, to agree with those who see the correspondence -- the correspondence group as a fact-finding group, I think for the purposes, as was said, to have an x-ray of progress currently being made. We agree with the comments that Sweden made. There's no rendering of judgment by this correspondence group. That is the purview, that is the work of this group. So, thank you, Chairman. We support the approach. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Japan? >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We deeply appreciate the hard work to prepare the correspondence group. And Japan would like to support the work of the correspondence group and would like to be a member of this correspondence group and cooperative work of the correspondence group. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Japan. Very grateful for that, especially for the last part that you would like to be part of it. I encourage again all governments to be part of it. Having said that, can I take the terms of reference as accepted by this group? Thank you. Oh, Saudi Arabia, sorry. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What exactly -- I mean, is it the way it's presented right now? Because we have two Bs, two Cs. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I go back to Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: That was going to be my question to you, Chair. I presented amendments to -- >>CHAIR MAJOR: In that case, we accept the amendments. We clean up the text and we accept the amendments. Yes? >> VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Chairman. If we are accepting amendments, then 5D now requires the group to make -- suggest actions, which is -- that's the corrected text. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, I understand. Good point. >> VIRAT BHATIA: Which is the job of the larger group. This was debated extensively. And the word "action" was dropped because it is a synonym for "recommendations" or "towards recommendations." >>CHAIR MAJOR: Can you suggest text? >> VIRAT BHATIA: We should keep the original text. I just had one more point. >>CHAIR MAJOR: As I indicated, it is in the mandate of this group to make recommendations, to make judgments, evaluations. It's not in the mandate of the correspondence group, so there's no need according to the mandate of this group to delegate any of these actions. It is us who are going to do it. Yes, please, continue. >>VIRAT BHATIA: The second point that I had is with regards to 5B where the word "identify" has been replaced with "list," I just want to clarify and understand that because if "list" means just putting the name of an association or a body, then that would be insufficient because for the larger group to be able to make a call on the substantive contributions of that group, then it can't be just listing. It will have to be descriptive. So if listing does not mean restricting a descriptive notion -- because the contribution and the progress can be identified only after reading a descriptive notion. And if that's not on because it is the word "list" which is just reference to a name or an abbreviation, that, I believe, will be insufficient even for the group to get their document out to us. So either we agree that "list" doesn't mean just the name or we go back to identifying we're okay with either one so long as we have an agreement and understanding. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But if there is -- I mean, if there is no meat or an output that will help us, why establish this group, if we are just going to have informative? If we are only getting informative, it will be more appropriate, more balanced, especially with the Item 2 there, to do the same thing we did with the questionnaire. We formulate these questions, send it as a questionnaire, get the replies, then the working group will decide. But if you are going to have a correspondence group just for collecting information, why waste the time? Just formulate it as questions, send it as a questionnaire. And it will be more balanced that all stakeholders will be -- get the chance to reply and that's it. And especially when I say if you're going to do the required action or a proposal. So you are limiting me to just say, okay, there is a mechanism and I speak about that mechanism? I cannot even say that mechanism is not appropriate? That mechanism is not international mechanism? That mechanism is not an intergovernmental mechanism? I mean, you cannot just direct me to one corner and I just follow that based on the questions. If the correspondence group is not going to do evaluative or to propose something, put them as a question, send them as a questionnaire, and save the time, I mean, for the correspondence group members. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Nigeria. >>NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the floor. I have to -- I shall thank you for the great job for the comments here. Everything is (indiscernible). They actually address so much what has been happening as part of the discourse. So that effect, I would like to be included as a member among the correspondence group. I want to be a part of the process to be helpful. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. So right now we have two Bs and two Cs, if I'm not mistaken. Any proposal how to move forward? Yeah. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Based on Tunis Agenda and from there we get the enhanced cooperation, when we say "enhanced cooperation associated with framework or mechanisms," and that's based on Tunis Agenda, paragraph 60 -- I mean, either 68 or 69, so the most appropriate thing is to say "mechanisms or framework" because that's the thing that relates to the enhanced cooperation. Existing activities, we can have so many existing activities but it is not in the code of the enhanced cooperation, international -- >>CHAIR MAJOR: Is "framework" acceptable to the group? That's what you want, "mechanism and framework"? >>SAUDI ARABIA: Tunis Agenda says "mechanisms" in paragraph 60, if I'm not mistaken. Yes. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. The second B in blue. There was a concern about the first list in point B in blue. Can you clarify what you mean by list? I think the proposal came from you. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Yes. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So what do you mean by "list" with respect to the intervention of Virat? >>SAUDI ARABIA: Because if we say "identify," it will be judgmental. You identify something. Should I agree with it or not? But it's just to give me something that's already established, listed to me. This is a corresponding group, okay. We need answers in one line, two lines, one paragraph, not five pages to identify something that you see as an international mechanism or a framework. It is either yes or no. Is there a mechanism? Yes. Put the name of it. That's why we said "list." >>CHAIR MAJOR: Sweden? >>SWEDEN: Thank you. First of all, if you could indulge a little bit the text. Unfortunately, my eyes are not so sharp. Just to comment on the point made about analysis, analyze the material versus just mapping, I think it still has a lot of value to do the mapping. And I think it's a big difference between mapping and what we need to do sorting different issues in different categories, for example, and identifying where, in which processes, in what mechanisms, so -- in what fora they're addressed and a questionnaire. I think the questionnaire, we have already done that; and it has been really useful. We have connected in that way a broad range of views on this issues. But I think the very nature of what we are trying to do now to move the work forward is quite different from what we can do with the questionnaire. So we think it's a lot of added value. And I've heard from a lot of colleagues here that actually doing this kind of mapping to have a good factual base to have a more informed discussion when we are going to move forward towards formulating recommendations has a lot of added value. So we don't really see the point made that this shouldn't be of any added value and that we should repeat the exercise that we have already done when it comes to the questionnaire. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Andres. >>ANDRES PIAZZA: Thank you very much, Chair. I guess the distinguished colleague of Sweden already took many of my points, so I want to agree with him. And I want also to congratulate Phil and the rest of the group, too, for the progress made and also say that I want to be available for the corresponding group, too, in the next month. So I want to be listed. Thank you very much. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I believe practically all the working group may volunteer. I can see no problem about that. So I just once again encourage you to do that. Virat, please. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Mr. Chairman, on the point of listing versus identify, the notion that a one-line or two-line answer can be given, as has been suggested by the distinguished delegate of Saudi Arabia, the concern that we have with that is the following: And I'll illustrate that with an example. For example, if the discussion is about human rights and Internet and IGF was listed as a fora and it was just listed IGF, then that's actually leaving it to everybody's judgment on what IGF does. On the other hand, when the group is doing the research and getting information, if there was a list that 18 sessions across the last nine years have occurred, including one main session, and so many participants have spoken, this is the kind of text available, we expect that to come up, when that is substantively different while making a judgment on whether the IGF is an effective international mechanism for enhanced cooperation where the issue of human rights and Internet is concerned. And I think that's -- that's the kind of information that this group is looking for. And I think that's the kind of information that will come, both from the filings that have already been made by the 60-plus participants and if you were to open this further, then others would substantiate it. So the quality of work that will come in will obviously make it tedious for us to go through some more papers, but we will make a much better qualitative judgment based on the evidence that would be provided. And that is the reason why I suppose it would help to be descriptive rather than one or two lines responses back. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Virat. As you may know, I am also involved in the Radio Advisory Group of the ITU, I'm the vice chair, and as the vice chair I was chairing a correspondence group on the improvements of the VR, this is the Radiocommunication Bureau of Information Systems. We have gone through a kind of similar debate about the mandate of the group and after they settled the issue of mandate there was a great enthusiasm from the members of the Radio Advisory Group to participate. Can anyone tell me how many people participated out of 60-plus? Three. In addition to -- two in addition to myself. But the bulk of the work had to be by me. And I took all the blame, because you can't do a good job. There's no way you can do a good job. And those of you who are familiar with the ITU know that. So please, don't insist because we are going to end up having poor Phil doing it on his own, and while I'm too pessimistic but I hope some of us will help him and some of us who made commitments will really contribute. But I believe, let's stop now the discussion here, try to stick to some -- some of the formulation. Believe me, it's almost irrelevant, at the end of the day, what we agree on here. Because the work we are going to have is the more important one. So I really ask you to approve whatever we have and let's move forward. It is going to be a very useful thing for us as a group, and we will be very grateful to Phil and a few others who are going to contribute. And I really hope there will be more than two, as was in my case. Thank you. Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Just to save myself the embarrassment in February, Chair, unless there is input, I will do nothing. [ Laughter ] So it is up to others to contribute. I'm sure that will not be the case. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was not going to intervene but just to agree with one point that was raised by Saudi Arabia, that if the final outcome of the group would be thinking to identify, at least without any kind of judgment recommendation, that would be -- not would be in favor of that. But if it is an intermediate step, as a tool to assist us in a second stage then to have -- to provide for analysis on this. So I think the way you are proposing is just okay. There is one point of clarification I would like to ask you because in both of these refers to the status of mechanisms. What is exactly meant by the status? Is it -- I don't understand what is the concept of the status? Is it something that is apparent to you, something that is -- what -- what is the criteria to judge the status? I'd like to have some more clarity on this, please. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Valid question. Before I give the floor to India, can the originators of this brilliant idea, this spreadsheet, clarify the status, meaning of the status. Parminder, are you able to do that? >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Yeah. After disclaiming brilliance, I can try to say what it was supposed to mean, and it was supposed to mean along with a (indiscernible) that was sent to the list which was about four or five lists, we will try to judge the mechanism like it is validity with the subject, it is (indiscernible) with the subject. So there's a certain list which would be used and it has a proposed list. Otherwise all kinds of judgments, and we can -- I think that work can be left to Phil to have four or five categories, which have been discussed since the morning, about what are we talking about, what kind of judgments we are putting on the mechanism. Whether it is international, whether it is dealing with the subject entirely or partially, and that kind of categories. But yes, it is a judgment, but we can keep it closed by giving four or five, six exhaustive options. >>CHAIR MAJOR: It is my understanding that the group intends to have an intermediate -- intermediate report by the end of November, and most likely in January, and we'll have time to comment on that. So basically if we are in disagreement with something, probably we can contribute the same way. And it is also up to us what we accept and what we don't accept. And we can allow the group to make mistakes. I know that they are not allowed to, but still, I believe they will make mistakes, they will make errors, and we have to be very lenient. India, please. And I believe I would like you to be the last one. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I thought Phil should be worrying about which, we should take the blue or the black. You have two choices. >> I prefer the blue. >>INDIA: You prefer the blue. Okay. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: But what is more important for me, the number of people contributing. And don't forget that. Can we go? We delete the black and retain the blue. Sweden? >>SWEDEN: Thank you. Well, just to make clear, I think the blue is the one that is giving this group a mandate to evaluate its existing mechanisms, as it's phrased, or addressing the issues in the least. So we would have preferred the black one, and I think that is what I have heard a lot from the room. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I really understand your concerns, but believe me, it's of no significance. I'm really sorry to say that we shall see from the number of contributions. I may be too pessimistic as opposed to our assignment really because I'm generally an optimistic person, but from my experience I'm -- I believe that the main thing is -- just sets the working group -- the correspondence group and let it work. Yes, Virat. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Chairman, can we suggest a compromise where we can go with blue with the exception of listing to be clarified to be descriptive or support the point made by Sweden, sort of go through identify and then take away the required action. That certainly is a -- is a problem. So if you can take those two out, then we can go with blue, it can work. [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >> We took away "required action"? Okay, fine. >>CHAIR MAJOR: There's no action to be taken. There's no "required action." >>VIRAT BHATIA: The only point left is -- >>CHAIR MAJOR: So can you please reflect -- [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Retain blue? Okay. Delete black. [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: The other way around? Virat -- >>VIRAT BHATIA: There's one indication of I just -- I read this when you say, list the existing -- sorry, this is a bit difficult to read for me. List what the existing international mechanisms addressing the list means, nearly half or more of the list that has been prepared and provided by the 60 or inputs are going to be wiped out of the discussion, if -- I mean, we should either say national/international or not have international because this means half the work that's been done, or maybe more than half of the work that has been done, could be wiped out. Just a suggestion for the room to consider. So I'm suggesting either international and national or remove international. [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: You want to take the floor? Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: I just want to mention to colleagues that that was why I intervened before. We sent out a questionnaire with 18 questions in it and in good faith and we worked very hard on that questionnaire, as I recall. I think some of you actually left me unsupervised for an hour or two until midnight or something, but we worked very hard on that questionnaire, as we all recall. We sent it out and then we all worked in good faith to get people to fill it in. And the people who filled it in, a large number of them, the majority of the responses came from governments. I think there's a real problem if we restrict our analysis now in a way that will not take that input into account. If we could go back to -- I share the concern that Virat Bhatia has raised that the word "list" could end up with just a narrow term that people wouldn't even understand. If I listed APWG or MAAWG, M-A-A-W-G, most people in this room wouldn't know what that is but it's the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group which does a huge amount of work on spam and that would be relevant information. So I'm hoping that we'll be flexible but not get multiple pages, just a short description. But the thing I'm most concerned about in B is, whatever the word is, "list" existing mechanisms addressing Internet public policy. I -- isn't that what we asked people to do, to respond to. And how do we do the analysis if we do not include the kinds of mechanisms and framework -- I went back and looked at the Tunis Agenda and I believe it says frameworks or mechanisms, if required. But let's say the concern here is we need to be able to include the scope of the questionnaire that we distributed. It is really unfair to those people who we asked to contribute if we do not take their input into account. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. And it's also against our intentions. Parminder and India. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: I think we have a duty towards all people who have given inputs, but we also have a duty, which is quite friendly, to the UNGA which gave us a mandate. The mandate is here, and we have to respond to the mandate. It is good to work with a big broad based pyramid, but you have to go towards the tip which is the recommendations which are in accordance with the mandate. And if you had to go towards the tip, we need to focus on our mandate which is very clear about enhanced cooperation which is defined as pertaining to international public policy issues. That's what the mandate is. So now defeatists say that because there are responses of certain kinds we need to know -- our recommendation has to be based on that. That's a good material for us to understand the issues, but we need to work on the mandate. And the mandate is very clear, it's about international public policy issues. I don't understand what we would be doing about talking about what, for example, India is doing on (indiscernible) diversity on the Internet within India. That's not what we can put in our recommendations. So we want to waste time of the group spending time talking again about those kind of issues when we are now supposed to be giving recommendations outside the mandate is my concern. Therefore, the international public policy issues and international mechanisms is precisely now trying to get narrowed down to what we are supposed to respond to. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I think we've been constantly compelled to make interventions but at one stage you are gaveled with talking about moving forward but again, it's a very fundamental issue. Given the mandate of this group, I think we need to bear in mind that the way in which even the Tunis Agenda has evolved in Paris with 60, 61, they talked about an adequacy of mechanisms of frameworks for what? For the international public policy issues. Now, there could be a mechanism at the national level which is dealing with a possible international public policy issue, but that is not the relevance or the mandate of this group to identify. We're looking at an international mechanism, if we -- quite possible in the middle of the discussion we may say well, it's already clear, that's a different story. But at this point in time we need to look at those international mechanisms. And that is the spirit with which we are all in this room. So let's -- I have no problem in listing all that, but the only thing is you go further and we'll have a much larger database and then we'll have to sift through the same process, the process through which you're going and stick only to the international issues rather than the national issues. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, as a matter of fact, I do trust the correspondence group to make appropriate judgments whether it's relevant or not relevant, and I really trust them, since they are also members of this group, to come up with a final document which will be -- which we will be able to handle in the proper way. And so I tell you, I don't really want to spend much time on that. We are just going around and around and we are just postponing to do real work. I'm really sorry to say that. Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry to prolong the agony. But I am now, as one of the co-conveners, slightly confused. I am told on the one hand I should make no judgment, there should be only factual information. Now I am being asked to make a judgment on whether or not something is international or national. I think the bottom line is, if the information comes in, I will put it into a form that is agreed to by the correspondence group and you, too, will have to share my pain, Chair. I am sorry to say this. I will buy you a nice cup of coffee afterwards. But I will make no judgment. This -- I reiterate for the fourth time, this correspondence group is merely a tool for the working group. It is the working group's role, expertise, to make the judgments. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. I will ask you for the coffee a bit later. Let me propose the following thing: The output of this correspondence group will be a Chair's document and it will be my responsibility to take and make any judgment which I think is appropriate. Is it acceptable? Okay. [ Speaker is off microphone. ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: You want to take the floor, observer? I have taken the decision over. >>MATTHEW SHEARS: If I may, Chair. Matthew Shears of CDT. Part of the mandate of this working group is to seek, compile, and review inputs. If we're moving to a terms of reference -- and I apologize for prolonging this further but I do feel this has to be said -- if we're moving to a terms of reference that focuses on mechanisms, international mechanisms as some have inserted in here, rather than fora and other activities, we are effectively removing a considerable portion of the work that should be done as part of that review process. And it is quite astonishing to me that we have 60 or so inputs to this process and now we're saying that most of those inputs actually don't meet some kind of new set of criteria. They have not been reviewed. Those issues should be reviewed, as a part of this process. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Just let me repeat, I expect an output from the group which will be my document, and I will make the judgments. Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I -- as I see it, I think the -- this correspondence group is still not -- is fully consistent with the mandate we have. I think actually in spelling out the questions we have been fully respectful of all input received. I think we initially had this lengthy list of over 400 contributions, collecting all of the views from all participants on the relevant issues to be examined. So what we are trying to do to organize our work to make it workable for us is to request for an input. What is the input? On the basis of these contributions we have, we want to have a document relating these to saying whether those issues that were identified by submissions that were obviously related to something that is theirs, who is doing what, I think this is something that we find -- we found as a group properly to have in order to move forward. But this is, to my view, fully consistent with the fact that we are being respectful of the submissions that we have received and trying to relate to them. But making it into a way that is workable for us, otherwise either we cannot make out the work that was mandated to this group. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. I will reflect the results of this discussion in my report, and I suggest we move forward. We have two hours to go. I closed -- I closed the debate. I would like to move forward, and I would like to ask India if you have any proposal for the framework for our recommendations? >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. At the outset I must say that I have not really been able to come up with a very serious framework, but something which I attempted which would -- would be in the form of what were the broad elements of the report rather than put together language at this stage. So that is my -- this is based on the discussion that we had and the similar reports that have been produced by the working groups. If you permit me, Chair, I just will highlight some of the elements of it rather than going into the specific details because it will be -- it would be quite unfair to draw a conclusion when we are not even started making serious assessments about various contributions that we have received. With that admission, Chair, I think firstly, the way we look at this, we could have a kind of introduction to the report which would talk about the mandate that has been given to this working group by the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 67/195. With a specific recommendation made -- or recommendations to be made on how to fully implement the mandate of the enhanced cooperation as contained in the Tunis Agenda and how we went about doing this process, the modis operandi which the working group has chosen and the meetings that have been set up and how we arrived at the questionnaire. So this could be captured in the body of the report in the form of an introduction. And of course, today's development which is talking about this -- talking about the correspondence group which has been tasked with a very sensitive assignment of -- I do not fully agree with saying it is not just reporting of what has been given but I think it's a very sensitive job of even to put together those ideas and presenting it as one particular input to the working group. And based on -- the next part of the report could be looking at what is the broad approach that we want to take on this. The group seems to have taken a clear recognition that there are a large number of issues above the Internet and also on the use of the Internet that affect most of the people who have access to it and also looked at areas where people who have no access to it and how to perhaps look at addressing those issues. Secondly, there are also issues which needed a holistic examination on the use of Internet because it -- one way or another it will touch upon the concept of enhanced cooperation. So that would be the next element. But we also have seen some acknowledgment in the room, at least some delegations have said that there are issues that are to be dealt with by existing mechanisms and then others who said that while there is still no home for some of the issues, that when they say issues they're talking about the international public policy issues pertaining to Internet, I think. Having made this broad position of what has been achieved and what are the gaps, we would then look at what are those relevant areas, relevant broad areas that the working group could look at as a possibility, again flowing out of the Tunis Agenda which is firstly talking about this identification of those international public policy issues pertaining to Internet which is an exercise the correspondence group would come up with which will perhaps could be part of this particular portion of the report. And there are technical issues as well as issues relating to the oversight. That would be in the range of the -- thereafter, I think the most would say assessment-based aspects will now have to come into the report before we actually go into the recommendations. Now here, when you talk of assess -- prior to assessment we also need to look at the role of various stakeholders. Now, this is where there seems to be some lack of convergence, if I can use the word. The issue which is of whether what has been described in the Tunis Agenda of the relative roles, do they still remain intact or there has been certain cross -- cross, what do you say, movement of some of the responsibilities of the various stakeholders. But I think it will not be inappropriate, at least to begin with, to use what is the language that's given in the Tunis Agenda, for example, with regard to the role of the governments and with regard to the role of private sector, the role of civil society, and the role of Internet -- governmental organizations. And one thing we must certainly do is bring in the role of academic and technical communities which -- who have been left behind for God knows what reasons. I think their contributions also need to be recognized and see what relative role they can also bring into the whole enhanced cooperation element. At the end of this -- I mean, here we need to -- again, in each of these, we could have a shepherd which -- initiating from what is given in the Tunis Agenda. And if there are any changes, the group feels need to be added or to be made, and that is something -- that would be part of an assessment, frankly an assessment we'll have to make, given the views that are prevalent in the room. Then comes the next level which is the inputs that are going to be moving into the mechanisms or frameworks. There are views about fora, the colleagues have said, or activities. Now, this is where we need to be making perhaps a very close -- we will be taking a close look at this part of the report which would talk about the need for strengthening the existing mechanisms and at the same time talking about the need for having possible new mechanisms. And this is where the direct input we will get from the correspondence group which would have done a certain mapping of the existing -- of identified international public policy issues. And then we have the mechanisms or frameworks which are existing. And if they're not in the view of the group, then we need to perhaps touch upon that part in this part of the -- in this part of the report. And there's one more dimension which we might need to reflect, again, this is the relationship of whatever mechanisms which are existing or new ones, with the existing bodies, international bodies, which are dealing with international public policy issues. Just to give an example, like WIPO. There are issues which are already being dealt with by WIPO, similarly ITU, some aspects. We could come up with this relationship of those existing mechanisms or the new ones with this new body -- with the already -- with the part of the United Nations system because they are already part of it. And there is also already a big debate in the WIPO how to deal with issues relating to what has been transacted on the Internet. Toward the end, I think it will be very important for us also to look at -- I mean, this is one thing which I thought would be very relevant to look at the relationship with the IGF because as we made this process that we should have two processes which are complementing each other and working on a side-by-side basis. Of course, I did hear some views today that some believe that it is in itself part of the enhanced cooperation. That's debatable. But I think we need to, given the current mandate of the Tunis Agenda and the U.N. General Assembly resolutions, very clearly pointing out that these are two processes distinct and having certain complementarities which need to be further strengthened, in a sense. It could be a very good relationship between the two processes. Broadly, I think -- the last issue which I think will be a final outcome of the correspondence group would have to come under the relevant roles which we are going to define. The role of, let's say, a particular stakeholder and possible areas under which have been identified by the group, those could be either listed there or could be annexed to the report. So that -- to keep the main body of the report relatively shorter and to have an annex which gives those areas which we have -- perhaps believe could be part of a particular stakeholder's direct response. Here comes the challenge. There could be areas where they are cross-cutting, where everyone is involved. We need to devise the mechanism of how to list those international public policy issues that we would like them to be looked at by a stakeholder or stakeholders. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. It's nice to hear one's own ideas back. You are already writing my report, so I'm real grateful for that. I think there is great merit what you have said. And probably what I suggest to you is taking from -- either you can provide the written form or we can take it from the transcript. And I will ask the secretariat to start an initial rolling document in this sense which really makes sense. And probably it's something which people can contribute and say, no, we want a different categorization, we want a different structure. But we have to start somewhere. And that's my main idea, that eventually we should come up with some kind of structure for our recommendations. I fully agree that naturally we will have an introductory part. We will have an analysis part. We will have all the text which is needed for this report. But to have some kind of structure for the recommendations, it is really needed to think about how we are going to formulate. One idea I had was based on the document which was offered to you as a summary of the responses, which is strictly related to the inputs we had and which also reflect the mandate. And it may be also an idea to reflect these categories what we had in the summary paper in the recommendations. In the process of our work, we may find that eventually we should deviate or we should split some of the categories. It may be that we shall merge some of the categories. I still don't know. It very much depends on you and on the way we are going to move forward. I really thank you for your contributions. And if you want to add, please do it. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I was remiss on my part not to mention another important dimension which is relating to the developing countries of which I think there is -- some contributions are coming in. And that would be a part of the report which will have to come perhaps just before conclusions, I guess, because it will also be drawing upon some of the recommendations that the group would be making on whether it is on the relative roles or whether it is on the mechanisms. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Any comments on the intervention of India? Sweden, please. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, first of all, I would like to thank India for this work. I think it is really a good start. Definitely something that we can work on. We're looking forward to seeing it in written form, and then we will analyze that further. And maybe we can work on a rolling document, as you said. I just want to make one thing clear from our perspective for the record, that when we're talking about "mechanisms" here, our interpretation of that is that it can be a process, it can be an organization, it can be a fora. So that is -- potentially, that's a list that could be expanded. I think that's very important to make clear given both the mandate of the correspondence group and the structure that was proposed by India on the report. But we are -- once again, would like to thank India for that. And I think we can work further on that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Avri? >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you, Chair, for giving me the opportunity to speak. I just wanted to mention that several of us put forward a document that was intended as food for thought and I believe is in many ways complementary to many of the recommendations just made by India. In that document, we try to reflect the reality with the Tunis Agenda as the starting point for all of our discussions but that it is also not the last word on Internet governance or the roles and responsibilities in an evolving Internet. It takes into account and respects the many views that we have received to the questionnaire. It appreciates the existing mechanisms respectful of the idea and the many organizations of the Internet technical community. And it attempts to avoid any top-down recommendations that would harm the organic international Internet processes that are ongoing and constantly evolving. So on behalf of those who contributed to the stake in the ground, I would like to ask the members of this community to consider our offerings as we move forward. Thank you very much, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. I think your contribution has been circulated within the group to be taken into account. And I would like to remind us all that we are all part of the process, which is the WSIS +10 process. So with this in mind, we have to pursue our work. So we are going to contribute to this WSIS +10 process. I can see Jimson. >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you, Distinguished Chair. I want to really appreciate you for the way you have moderated thus far. I would like to speak to the proposal or the submission of distinguished representative from India. Actually, I wanted to comment to talk about: Have you left us out, the developing countries? And then he came up again and talked about it. So I think a bigger gap on enhanced cooperation is to focus in on what happens at developing nations. That should be given a lot of recognition in the report. And, also, to agree with the distinguished delegates from Sweden with regard to what we mean by "mechanism" because there are a lot of processes that is ongoing that is also facilitating the process of building confidence with regard to formulating international policy pertaining to the growth of the Internet. And, lastly, there was a very important forum that took place here in Geneva that was May last year. There was a lot of inputs in that forum, very rich because I read the script and everything. So I think it also would be good if we make reference to that. The correspondence group can have it, actually can look through it, can be part of the reference group because I can recall a lot of vital inputs in that discussion, the first discussion enabled by the CSTD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson. I believe the document has been made available to the group. It was the initial document -- one of the initial documents for the first meeting that was the transcript of the 2012 May meeting of this year, so open consultation the CSTD had in the ILO last -- not last May but May 2012. So thank you. It's well taken, but it has already been made available. If you wish, we can resend it. Virat, you wanted to take the floor. And then even though I told Brazil we are not going to have coffee, we are going to have coffee. >>VIRAT BHATIA: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to come in and throw our weight behind the framework presented -- the early sketch of the framework presented by distinguished delegate from India. I think we don't -- we perhaps don't realize the importance of this because otherwise this could take one of those four days. And so if -- I think this is really excellent use of our time. If this framework that has been stated in some ways can be structured and put together for comments, then it would be our -- it should be our endeavor to try and agree broadly or as closely as possible on at least the framework when we begin the four-day meeting. You see I'm emphasizing again and again a "four-days" meeting in February because we all want to be back on Friday evening home. If we could try and do that, then I think it will help to have an effective Monday morning rather than spending half the day just arguing on the framework. As the contributory groups work on their mapping exercise, the other larger group on e-mail can mail this as close to as possible. Thanks. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Virat. That was exactly the reason, I'm sorry to say, that pushed India to make public this vote and share with us because I want to save time. And this is a very, very valuable contribution and it will save us a lot of time. And I just want to ask you, in case you have something electronic -- in electronic form, to submit it to the secretariat. And, eventually, probably we can work offline to put out a document on the working group Web site and for consultation with the other members. And when we come back in February, we are very prepared and we know what we are going to do exactly. Having said that, I propose to have a 20-minute coffee break. And after coffee break, I would like to ask the United States who submitted some contribution in form of a recommendation to propose to us. And I would like to close our meeting, if possible, before 6:00. Thank you. So we will come back in 20 minutes time. Oh, Sweden, sorry. >>SWEDEN: Thank you. Just to say also together with Brazil, Mexico, U.K. and Sweden, we have also worked -- well, Sweden, (chuckles) we have also worked on some recommendations that we would like to present to the membership. >>CHAIR MAJOR: You are more than welcome. [ Break ] [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. Can I ask you to take your seats, please. Thank you. Right. So before we broke for coffee, we had a wonderful contribution from India for the framework. And we were promised to have the electronic form in a short while, probably by Monday. And I'm going to work with the secretariat to have the document out on the Web site in order you can have a look at that and comment. Probably this is going to frame our work for the next meeting and will save a lot of time for us. The other thing I mentioned before the coffee break was that we had contributions from several participants, members, in form of recommendations. So who would like to start with the submissions, please raise your flag and let's try to finish before 6:00. I would like to emphasize that this is a draft. We are going to consider it and probably we shall get back to the recommendations -- draft recommendations in our next meeting. But probably this is offered by some of the members for your comments. I believe United States wanted to give the recommendations and eventually from the group of countries, Sweden or Brazil. I'm not sure. Okay. United States, please. >>UNITED STATES: Sure. Thank you, Chair. In the spirit of the guidance that you provided earlier today about looking at possible draft recommendations that could be put forth, particularly in the discussion we had about looking at Group 4, perhaps to start, we put together something to offer for the process. Should I just read it? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yes, please. >>UNITED STATES: Okay. "International Internet organizations should continue to evolve to meet the needs and facilitate the participation of all stakeholders (including particularly those from developing countries) in their collaborative mechanisms and stakeholders from all groups are encouraged to engage in those Internet institutions to further realize the benefits of their participation. Where participation may be hampered by lack of awareness, educational opportunity, political priority or financial resources, the Internet governance community should endeavor to help find ways to enable such participation." Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, USA. It is very helpful. And as I mentioned to you, this is a draft and probably you consider it also as a draft. And we have to start from somewhere. And I'm really glad that at least we have some draft recommendations. Any comments? You are not obliged to give comments, of course. But if you feel like, raise your hand. Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I would like to thank the U.S. for this. Mr. Chair, I think this is language that captures much of what we have said. And, of course, we would think that meaningful collaboration from this group should go beyond this and provide some more substance to those recommendations. But I think this is -- this captures the framework in which we should work. So I think it's valid that if we can come out of this meeting with some formulations upon which we can build, can try to insert more substance but will, let's say, already give us some direction, not start from zero. In that same sense, we have been working with Sweden, and my colleague from Sweden will introduce the text. It is something which is not at all our ambition at this point in time. We are not, of course, prejudging the outcome of the discussion we have but will provide for some sort of initial way to try to figure out how the recommendations made from this group could look. I would like this to be seen in that light, not something that reflects something that is -- reflects our ambition. It certainly does not. But it is an initial step in that regard. And I thank the U.S. also for this. I think it is very important that we initiate our next meeting with something already in writing to -- not to start from zero and lose time, even in trying to figure out how to go about it. This is the purpose of this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. That is exactly my thought when I asked the participants to contribute in this sense, to start the process of producing recommendations or just the beginning of recommendations. It is also the most difficult part to start something. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. And thanks to the U.S. delegation for starting off. As the Chair says, it is a difficult thing to start off, and we have something we can build over it. And building over it -- I'm going to a layer part, not that I have a problem with the process. And we are into talking about recommendations about part 4 and 5. I mean, the sense of certain discomfort about talking about this has not gone, and it is also exemplified with the present text on the screen. That is not a part that something is more important than the other, but some set of questions are dependent on other sets of questions. And as I now engage with this particular discussion, I again feel that 4 and 5 is so dependent on 2 and 3 that your mind is going to start making contributions not knowing we are trying to increase participation in what mechanisms, we are examining the role of developing countries in what. And that comes back because I don't disagree with that part which is on the screen. However, it's one part. Existing international organizations who are doing work should be more inclusive and the reasons given are about awareness, finance, et cetera which, again, are an important set of work. But a lot of people here earlier, yesterday, or perhaps the day before, said that one of the biggest reasons developing countries can't participate is because there are no mechanisms. And that was repeated by a few people. That's the big thing. Now when we discuss -- having not discussed that big thing, you already are uncertain about the contributions you are making. I mean, what is it you're talking about. And if we speak about that, I mean, I would like to contribute that the biggest problem of developing countries' role is an absence of mechanism. Then I'm probably discussing 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 which I should not do. So that makes me unsure what should I do in this part because for me the biggest problem of participation is absence of international forums where all countries are on equal footing and they can start from the agenda onwards to the final outcomes be a part of the process. So I would think that for me is the biggest excluding factor. And other factors are important, but they come later. And I agree with those factors which have been put on the table. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. Ellen, please. Oh, no, Jimson first. Sorry, sorry. >>ELLEN BLACKLER: I would just like to say in response that I had -- I have some of the same concerns, that it's difficult to do recommendations without having kind of this fact basis that we were looking for. But maybe if we can have an opportunity to review things we come up with in this process in light of the facts again, we'll be able to make some progress, that it is not an either/or operation. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Just reflecting on that naturally, it's an iterative process and we are going to review and probably not once. So, yes, we take it on board and probably with the mind that we are going to have other inputs from the correspondence group. We are going to clarify issues, what Parminder has raised. And in the light of that, probably this will fit into whatever we are going to recommend. Now Jimson. >>JIMSON OLUFUYE: Thank you, Chair. Distinguished colleagues, I would like to also join us to appreciate the contributions thus far and in particular the recommendation coming from United States. Well, we know that the issue at hand is an ongoing work and there is nothing wrong for us to make progress as much as we can, even as much as we are within the bigger picture. Well, I want to say I agree with the proposals and I have one or two other propositions here, recommendations. It's similar to what has been proposed, but maybe we can marry them down the line. The first one is that, that the ongoing inclusive national, regional, and international cooperation on matters pertaining to the Internet be sustained among all stakeholders with governments, private sector, civil society, technical and academic community actively playing their respective roles. Then the second one I would like to propose, that the mandate of the United Nations Commission for Science and Technology for Development be enhanced to coordinate international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet in a collaborative, multistakeholder framework that include governments, private sector, civil society, technical and academic community on an equal footing. Thank you, Distinguished Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Jimson. I can see Phil -- oh, Sweden, sorry. I'm sorry, Phil. Sweden asked for the floor first. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chair. I just also wanted to thank the United States and Jimson for those contributions. I agree that it's a good starting point, and I think that's how we should see it. And I think we all agree that what we have on the table now -- right now is only draft, and it's a way to move the work forward. And I think it's good that we work in parallel with the mapping and the drafting of recommendations. So I would like to thank, again, those that made those contributions. And after we have had the discussion on this, I'll come back with our joint recommendations. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Phil. No? Okay. Anyone asking for the floor, I just want to repeat, this is a draft. We are going to revisit it in our next meeting. This is something, just a beginning. I can see Nigeria and Marilyn. Nigeria, please. >>NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to proffer this proposal to -- that international (indiscernible) is already addressing international public policy issues pertaining to Internet strategic awareness and capacity building programs particularly in developing countries and across all sectors, including governments, private sector organizations, civil society, technical and academic communities. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Nigeria. Marilyn, please. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. I'd like to join with others who express appreciation for colleagues in the room who have already put forward some drafts for us to be thinking about. I'm very impressed to have already some language and some good thinking. But I wanted to ask, since I'm a bit slower in thinking, just to think about perhaps there would be a process for us to be able to not wait until our next meeting, but to be able to accept drafts of further recommendations and have a kind of a rolling single document for those -- a place where those would be aggregated so that we can not have to search through the mail list but, you know, have a place where we can find all of the drafts that are submitted as we go forward. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for the suggestion. Probably we are going to do -- not probably. We are going to do it. Sorry. It will be posted on the Web site. And you will have opportunity to contribute, even in between the two sessions we are going to have. Feel free to submit your proposals for recommendations, and it is most welcome and it will be reviewed, I think periodically, by all of us. I expect you to go from time to time to the Web site and find out if there's something new. But at the same time, probably we should establish a mechanism of kind of alert that there's something new. So we shall work it out within the Secretariat. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to accept drafting recommendations but we share the views expressed that when writing recommendations about Cluster 4 can 5, and without covering the Cluster 2 and 3, it's not really clear what kind of recommendations we want to come -- to put. However, we do -- can offer a recommendation as it's a draft and will be looked at at the next meeting. We could say that enhanced cooperation will help assure that Internet governance is carried out according to WSIS principles with full participation from all stakeholders in their respective roles. And enhanced cooperation will enable governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities pertaining to Internet and that by operationalizing enhanced cooperation through a body under the U.N. umbrella international public policy decision will be legitimate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. I think, as I mentioned, all submissions, all proposals for recommendations will be included in this rolling document which will be posted on the CSTD Web site. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you. Well, Brazil, Mexico, United Kingdom, and Sweden would then like to put forward some draft recommendations. We have tried to capture what we have interpreted as some of the areas where there might be emerging consensus, especially in relation to Group 4 and 5 of questions. And we would like to emphasize that this is just a starting point and it's not a finished product in any way, but something for the group to consider. That's the first one. Members should explore ways to strengthen participation of all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global Internet governance flora, including through funding mechanisms and alternative working methods such as remote participation. Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to participate through capacity building, including but not limited to training programs, awareness raising, best practice sharing. Three, members should work with developing countries to create a fair and consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates affordable access for all stakeholders. And four, the role of government should include but not be limited to, to empower Internet uses, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework that is transparent, accountable, and equitable, and protect human rights online, to foster a robust global Internet infrastructure and support multistakeholder processes and partnerships. So once again, I would just like to underline that this is just something that we see as a starting point, something that we can build up on, and I believe we can send -- send those drafts to the Secretariat. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden, Brazil, Mexico, and United Kingdom. I hope I didn't forget anyone. Naturally, we expect that you submit it electronically to the Secretariat that we would be able to post it on the Web site and the same applies to Saudi Arabia. We would like to have your contribution in print form to be posted on the Web site. I can see India, then Mexico and Phil. And Japan. Sorry. Japan was the first. I'm sorry, I couldn't see you. So please, take the floor. >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I deeply appreciate the U.S. and Sweden and Brazil and Mexico and U.K. to prepare the great contribution, preparing the draft of the recommendations for starting point of the discussion. Japan would like to submit the region comment and other input concerning the recommendations after the meeting concerning with the -- the regional organizations within Japan. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Japan. We are awaiting for your submissions. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. Just to flag that we would be making a recommendation on the list to address that particular dimension relating to the digital divide and the need for certain measures because where there is no access, no Internet, I think they also need to be brought into this before we can start talking about their empowerment, which some of these measures would empower those or make them part of the operation system. But we need to perhaps address other dimensions. On that direction we will try to put a recommendation. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Understand I can't help myself to sharing with you that when we were in Durban there was a -- one morning I think many of the participants went to a school which was some 40 kilometers from Durban to help them to paint the walls. And after this very nice action there was some meeting with the students, young students. I believe it's a secondary school. And there was a question asked, how many of you have you heard about the Internet? Of the 30, there was one student who raised his hand. Just one. So I think there's merit in what you're saying. Okay. Mexico. >>MEXICO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to thank my colleague from Sweden to introduce this proposal, recommendations, because we thought that, as you mentioned, that the objective was to have something -- quickly to start something and have it in black and white. So we think it's a very good step, and as you said, this is -- this -- all these contributions will be a working process and contributions regardless of what we decide on the other points, but it's a starting point. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Mexico. Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Much thank the contributors for providing the thoughtful and thought-provoking contributions. I'm sure, as the distinguished delegate from Mexico said, it is a starting point and something to evolve. The only point I would ask is that when the documents and proposals are posted on the Web site, could we also have the source of the proposal identified so that we can engage in conversations and discussions going forward to see and understand and hopefully when we come back in February to be very conversant with the other's views and hopefully agreements. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, it is my understanding that we shall quote the sources. I mean, it provides the understanding of the sources as well and it's not really the understanding but I would assume the wishes of the source to be quoted. Yes. I can see Parminder, and before -- and there's -- [ Speaker is off microphone. ] Mexico has already taken the floor. We have to recognize also some contributions were received by e-mail which will also be posted and there were contributions from Finland, Mervi contributed, and we have contributions from Avri and Carlos. So all these contributions -- and Joy. All these contributions will be posted on the Web site. If you feel like introducing them, that's perfectly okay. If you don't, that's okay as well. So I just wanted to flag it that we have further contributions that will be posted on the Web site. Probably at this hour we don't really want to go into detailed debate, but as I indicated to you, I think this is just the beginning. Lesotho. >>LESOTHO: Thank you very much, Chair. After sitting here a little bit quiet for the week, but solely because most of the points that have been raised are things that we are agreeable to. Chair, I just wanted to reemphasize two points that have already been raised, particularly for developing countries and more specifically least-developed countries. For them to be -- this relates to capacity building as well including their existing mechanisms within, basically national as well as regional mechanisms that are in place. And lastly, Chair, the point that you raised about the school you went to, seeing that Durbin is also very close to my country, the issue about digital divide that -- that has been raised by other colleagues here already, that it is very important that we -- it is very much captured. And lastly, Chair, I just want to thank all the -- the various speakers that have made their various recommendations and we look forward to going through those in preparation for the February meeting. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Lesotho. Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I -- my first comment is that was what was originally proposed by Marilyn Cade and supported by you but we should have a platform that would allow us internationally to feed into some other draft recommendations that will enable us at the beginning of next meeting to have a set of formulations we can work on. I think this would be very helpful from the point of view of efficiency of how we work. And then we, of course, also benefit from having the mapping exercise, I think we'll have tools that will assist us in our further work. One thing about making these proposals, and I have insisted in exercising the aspect that these are initial and they do not, I think, address correctly the vision and do not adequately encompass the mandate we are given. And if I can quote a thought from my compatriot, Carlos Afonso, we are discussing yesterday and he's been in this process for many years and he was just recalling that much of what we have been doing here has in some way already been addressed. So we run the risk in the end of just repeating formulations that have been already known. And so if we want to move ahead and make a contribution, real contribution, we must make a very good effort to go beyond that. I think the mapping exercise will be a tool for that. I think if we can have those formulation can think about these and try to put more substance. I think certainly we need to go beyond the mere identification of the issues and making a call because these are things that are already there. One proposal we are not -- but I'd like to indicate in line with what we have been saying, and Saudi Arabia has also made a proposal in regard to Groups 1 and 2 and 3. And one thing that is independent from this mapping is our assessment that we would like a platform but to enable for holistic integrated discussion. So this is something that we can, I think of as of now, we will in the next few days or so forward a proposal for that. But look something like operationalizing enhanced cooperation requires that we should maybe say multistakeholder platform through each government an equal footing could engage in the discussion and possible policymaking of international public-related issues, or something in that direction. And we think it's not pre-judging the outcome of the mapping exercise because we think this is something that is needed. And then I think we'll have to discuss, in our next meeting, whether we can -- there's enough consensus where that should be located, what to be formed. I think that will be relevant discussion. I think on the basis of the proposals from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others, maybe we can have enough substance of discussion and try to frame some way to address this. And of course, the specific recommendations relating to the mapping exercise of more specific issues. So I'm very glad that we have come to this. I was a bit concerned that we would come out of the meeting without something more concrete. This is not yet -- I repeat, that does not affect the foundation of the (indiscernible) but it is a step in the direction of building something that I think in the interest of calling us to go beyond what we have already have on the table. And as Carlos Afonso has reminded me, and I'm very thankful for him to recall this, not to give impression that we are just, let's say, rephrasing and giving better wording for things that are already there, even in the Tunis Agenda. I think we must go beyond that, and we have this opportunity and I think the moment is right to do so. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Brazil. I can promise you we will go beyond. I have no doubt. And Parminder, you want to take the floor? Okay. So I think this is a time to -- Oh, India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I couldn't but make this one last comment before we conclude. This is on the lines the distinguished ambassador from Brazil has mentioned of the various stakeholders. One idea which I'm just throwing it up here which we could pursue it in our future intersession as well as during the next debate, there are obviously few models which -- wherein governments have taken certain initiatives in some regions on how to prepare those Internet -- principles on Internet. One I can certainly recall is the OECD which has been referred to by some of the colleagues. And there are distinct areas where I think there is -- there is a felt need to have active role of governments, of course with the involvement through various processes of all other stakeholders. To just to name some of them, which I'm interested in reading, going through some of the documents that have been adopted by this body, and there is a call to see how it can be made applicable, replicate such things in a global manner. Whether it is cybersecurity, whether it is consumer rights, whether it is children online, whether it is international cooperation Internet governance, cross-border enforcement cooperation. There are some areas I think where we would eventually be required to make a comment on. And I think it will be another important contribution from our point of view, that where such areas -- again, the least possible, what we call friction, these are areas I'm sure all stakeholders are involved but there's a certain lead that the governments will need to take. Just a very indicative list. Which have been acknowledge and which are a part of the established documents which are being already followed by a few governments by virtue of a certain regional engagement. I don't think we will be out of place to reflect on some such areas and how we can see that such a mechanism or a fora, better way you can call where governments can actually take an active role (indiscernible) in our discussions in future. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. I believe this is the time to conclude. I won't be long. Japan, you want to take the floor. >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one question. To submit contributions and a comment, can you tell us the deadline to submit the contribution and the comments to the contributions and how to submit such kind of contribution? Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Probably the best way to submit your contribution is to the secretariat. The secretariat will post it on the Web site. As for the deadline, probably it will be the beginning of our next meeting. But all of us would prefer to have the comments, contributions, much before. But even during the meeting, you can contribute. We have no deadline. But please set yourself a deadline to do it considering what you would like to have from others. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. Again for clarification, I propose, that if the groups are submitting proposals and for the purpose of the consideration of other members of the group, to submit them on the list because then everybody immediately knows that there is a proposal because you never know how often to keep on going to the Web site. Just a proposal. People have different Web or Internet behavior. When the group gets it, they kind of respond to it immediately. So that's the whole idea so that probably it would be good in addition, of course, to putting it on the Web. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I think this is a good way forward, yeah. Okay. So please make your submissions in any way. So, ladies and gentlemen, we have come to the end of this meeting. I really want to congratulate you on the good cooperation you have shown. I think all of you contributed in a very, very good way. And it helped us, all of us, to have a better understanding of the issues which are ahead of us. We managed to go through the contributions. We analyzed the questions. We decided to set up a correspondence group. We decided on the terms of references for the correspondence group. We had a submission about the possible framework for all recommendations. But last, but not least, we had quite a lot of submissions, proposals, for recommendations. So I'm really pleased with the result we had up to now. And I'm also optimistic about the future meeting we are going to have in February. There is a great work waiting for us. I would encourage you to contribute to the best of your knowledge to the work of the correspondence group and to the work of the working group itself in forms of submissions, of recommendations. And please be prepared that for the next meeting, we are going to have a very, very hard task. We have to finish our work by providing recommendations in the sense the Ambassador of Brazil reminded us, that we should go beyond what has been done up till now. That is the reason we are here. And last, but not least, I would like to thank -- well, not last, I would like to thank, first of all, the secretariat for the excellent work they provided for us. And I would like to thank the scribes who have followed us. They did a great job. So I want to give a hand to them. [ Applause ] Thank you for your presence here, for your contributions. And I wish you a good journey back home. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But we cannot conclude without also thanking you for your able leadership and you deserve applaud and a hand from us all. [ Applause ] Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Virat? >>VIRAT BHATIA: Chairman, just one last point. I think for the last meeting, since we are timing it very carefully next to the MAG meeting and I suppose a lot more observers and especially from the civil society would want to participate, if we can be explicit about the date and the timing and the process for their participation as observers well in advance, it will help them to be here because they will be planning their visit to attend both meetings, including the weekend, so that will be helpful for them. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Right. (Meeting has concluded.) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Nov 12 00:43:29 2013 From: vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk (vincent solomon) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 05:43:29 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] I volunteered MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) In-Reply-To: <5280AF82.6040508@ciroap.org> References: <20131110193548.14491gp33txnqb8k@www.ciencitec.com> <5280AF82.6040508@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <1384235009.61078.YahooMailNeo@web172506.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Count me in . Plus one. 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 On Monday, 11 November 2013, 13:50, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 11/11/13 08:35, jfcallo at ciencitec.com wrote: Greetings, please accept my postulation volunteered for the NomCom > I can only assume that the masters of the black box don't want me on the MAG, judging how many times I've been nominated and passed over.  This may indicate that I can do more good outside the MAG than inside (to paraphase Groucho Marx, I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would accept me as a member).  So I will put myself forward for the nomcom this year instead. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m . ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 01:14:20 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:14:20 +0500 Subject: [governance] I volunteered MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) In-Reply-To: <5280AF82.6040508@ciroap.org> References: <20131110193548.14491gp33txnqb8k@www.ciencitec.com> <5280AF82.6040508@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Jeremy Excellent decision On Monday, November 11, 2013, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 11/11/13 08:35, jfcallo at ciencitec.com 'jfcallo at ciencitec.com');> wrote: > > Greetings, please accept my postulation volunteered for the NomCom > > > I can only assume that the masters of the black box don't want me on the > MAG, judging how many times I've been nominated and passed over. This may > indicate that I can do more good outside the MAG than inside (to paraphase > Groucho Marx, I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would accept me as > a member). So I will put myself forward for the nomcom this year instead. > > -- > > > > *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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -- 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Nov 12 01:19:26 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 22:19:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1384237166.4809.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear All IGC Members, Good morning from Pakistan, I am thankful to Ms Deirdre Williams for nominating my name for the election of IGC Coordinator, even she had support from Ms Ginger and her name was also announced as candidate list.  I hereby accept this nomination and I will try my best to meet your expectations, if I am elected. DISCLOSURE: Although I believe that there is no limitation under the IGC CS Charter as a requisite criterion for the candidate of coordinator election to disclose his/her funding relationship, however, for transparency purpose, I would like disclose that I have never obtained any kind of local or foreign funding for my initiatives which includes Linguistic Internet Council, Urdu Internet Society, Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan, and to lead working groups of Websphere User Group, Tivoli User Group, Rational User Group, Technology Foresight Project of ICT for Sustainable Development (National & Provincial Committees), organizing BIRDS Pakistan as a think tank for innovative research, Activities related to MDG Forum 2010, Promoting Information Security Professionals of Pakistan, Development of Common Hub for ISOC chapter rejuvenation process in Pakistan and Organizing Workshop at APrIGF 2003 at Seoul. I have no funding source or do not charge any membership fee.  However, I got ICANN’s fellowship to attend ICANN’s 36thSeoul Meeting in 2009 which mechanism is obvious for most of the IGC members. I also have avail support from International Islamic University, Islamabad to host IGF remote hubs in 2011 & 2012. Similarly I also have avail support from APrIGF to host IGF-PAK workshop at APrIGF 2003 at Seoul. I also feel it important to mention that I am not able for any commitment (w.r.t. financial support to bear the expenses) for the participation in-person to attend forth coming foreign meetings of ICANN, IGF or IGC. Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ > From: Deirdre Williams >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro ; Imran Ahmed Shah >Sent: Monday, 11 November 2013, 19:00 >Subject: Re: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] > > > >Dear IGC members, >I would like to nominate Imran Ahmed Shah for the position as Co-cordinator. I feel very honoured that Ginger should have nominated me, and I am very grateful to all those who have given me their support, but I also feel that it is important to the IGC's survival that there should be a choice of nominees, and I know that Imran has had nominations on previous occasions. I also feel that he may be able to bring a different perspective to the work that the co-coordinators need to do. I have asked Imran and he told me that he would accept nomination. >I hope that before nominations close on 1st December there will be other candidates as well who would be willing to give their time >Best wishes >Deirdre. > > > >On 10 November 2013 08:23, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >Dear Colleagues, >> >> >>Further to the June 6, 2013 notice for calls for coordinator, we are happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on December 1, 2013. >> >>For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was why we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about candidates. This year, we started making early calls to start thinking about nominating someone or standing for the elections for the 2014-2016 term. >> >> >>We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please liaise with them and nominate them on the list. >> >>The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 to allow for elections. having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I thought I should add some reflections that may help those who are thinking of standing or to encourage people to stand. >> >>Reflections >>The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the facilitation of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and encouraging members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the Charter and providing a platform for advocacy. The role and responsibilities will be an opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes antagonistic views. It requires strength, courage and emotional intelligence to manage the responsibilities. For me personally, it has been an incredible opportunity learning about dealing with diverse voices and I can say that I have learnt the discipline of restraint where at times I have had to hold back my view because facilitators have to have some form of neutrality and act in the best interests of the IGC community. >> >>Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs to be clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the majority before deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time for Internet Governance. >> >> >> >>The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally with the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. >> >> >>Current Nominations Received >> >> 1. Deirdre Williams >> 2. x >> 3. x >> >> >> >>Kind Regards, >>Sala >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>Dear All, >>> >>>Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like  would like to nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to choose from. >>> >>>Thank you. >>> >>>Kind Regards, >>> >>>-- >>> >>>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>P.O. Box 17862 >>>Suva >>>Fiji >>> >>> >>>Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>Tel: +679 3544828 >>>Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>> >>>  >>> >>> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > >-- >“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 kabani.asif at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 01:21:18 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:21:18 +0500 Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 On Monday, November 11, 2013, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Dear IGC members, > I would like to nominate Imran Ahmed Shah for the position as > Co-cordinator. I feel very honoured that Ginger should have nominated me, > and I am very grateful to all those who have given me their support, but I > also feel that it is important to the IGC's survival that there should be a > choice of nominees, and I know that Imran has had nominations on previous > occasions. I also feel that he may be able to bring a different perspective > to the work that the co-coordinators need to do. I have asked Imran and he > told me that he would accept nomination. > I hope that before nominations close on 1st December there will be other > candidates as well who would be willing to give their time > Best wishes > Deirdre. > > > On 10 November 2013 08:23, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 'salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com');>> wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Further to the *June 6, 2013* notice for calls for coordinator, we are >> happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on December >> 1, 2013. >> >> For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, >> there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of >> candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was why >> we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about candidates. >> This year, we started making early calls to start thinking about nominating >> someone or standing for the elections for the 2014-2016 term. >> >> We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating >> yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please liaise >> with them and nominate them on the list. >> >> *The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 *to allow for elections. >> having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I thought I >> should add some reflections that may help those who are thinking of >> standing or to encourage people to stand. >> >> *Reflections * >> The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the facilitation >> of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and encouraging >> members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the Charter and >> providing a platform for advocacy. The role and responsibilities will be an >> opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes antagonistic views. It requires >> strength, courage and emotional intelligence to manage the >> responsibilities. For me personally, it has been an incredible opportunity >> learning about dealing with diverse voices and I can say that I have learnt >> the discipline of restraint where at times I have had to hold back my view >> because facilitators have to have some form of neutrality and act in the >> best interests of the IGC community. >> >> Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the >> assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs to be >> clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the majority before >> deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time for Internet >> Governance. >> >> The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC >> community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally with >> the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. >> >> *Current Nominations Received* >> >> 1. Deirdre Williams >> 2. x >> 3. x >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com > 'salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com');>> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in >>> standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to >>> nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So >>> that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to >>> choose from. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org');> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > -- 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 amedinagomez at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 02:52:58 2013 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 02:52:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Antonio Medina Gómez 2013/11/12 Kabani > +1 > > > On Monday, November 11, 2013, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> Dear IGC members, >> I would like to nominate Imran Ahmed Shah for the position as >> Co-cordinator. I feel very honoured that Ginger should have nominated me, >> and I am very grateful to all those who have given me their support, but I >> also feel that it is important to the IGC's survival that there should be a >> choice of nominees, and I know that Imran has had nominations on previous >> occasions. I also feel that he may be able to bring a different perspective >> to the work that the co-coordinators need to do. I have asked Imran and he >> told me that he would accept nomination. >> I hope that before nominations close on 1st December there will be other >> candidates as well who would be willing to give their time >> Best wishes >> Deirdre. >> >> >> On 10 November 2013 08:23, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> Further to the *June 6, 2013* notice for calls for coordinator, we are >>> happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on December >>> 1, 2013. >>> >>> For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, >>> there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of >>> candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was why >>> we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about candidates. >>> This year, we started making early calls to start thinking about nominating >>> someone or standing for the elections for the 2014-2016 term. >>> >>> We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating >>> yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please liaise >>> with them and nominate them on the list. >>> >>> *The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 *to allow for elections. >>> having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I thought I >>> should add some reflections that may help those who are thinking of >>> standing or to encourage people to stand. >>> >>> *Reflections * >>> The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the >>> facilitation of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and >>> encouraging members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the Charter >>> and providing a platform for advocacy. The role and responsibilities will >>> be an opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes antagonistic views. It >>> requires strength, courage and emotional intelligence to manage the >>> responsibilities. For me personally, it has been an incredible opportunity >>> learning about dealing with diverse voices and I can say that I have learnt >>> the discipline of restraint where at times I have had to hold back my view >>> because facilitators have to have some form of neutrality and act in the >>> best interests of the IGC community. >>> >>> Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the >>> assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs to be >>> clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the majority before >>> deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time for Internet >>> Governance. >>> >>> The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC >>> community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally with >>> the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. >>> >>> *Current Nominations Received* >>> >>> 1. Deirdre Williams >>> 2. x >>> 3. x >>> >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in >>>> standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to >>>> nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So >>>> that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to >>>> choose from. >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> > > > -- > 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 06:22:32 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:52:32 +0430 Subject: [governance] Fwd: I* Organizations 1net consultations on the future of Internet Governance Message-ID: >From elsewhere Snipped The various I* Organizations have joined forces to work on a project entitled 1net. The project is hosting a free and open online forum about the future of Internet governance. The project has a dedicated website online at http://www.1net.org/content/en, and has a Twitter feed at https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=1netorg. Snipped -- 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 joly at punkcast.com Tue Nov 12 06:28:02 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 06:28:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] VIDEO: Bali and Beyond: An Internet Governance Forum Debrief Message-ID: Here is the cleaned up video of last week's IGF wrap up in DC. This was an interesting and entertaining conversational event. It includes more than one juicy anecdote. joly posted: "On Friday November 8 2013 the Internet Society Washington DC Chapter presented a forum - Bali and Beyond: An Internet Governance Forum Debrief - at the Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center, Washington, DC. Late last month, more than a thousand delega" On Friday November 8 2013 the Internet Society Washington DC Chapter presented a forum - Bali and Beyond: An Internet Governance Forum Debrief- at the Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center, Washington, DC. Late last month, more than a thousand delegates from almost a hundred countries gathered for four days at the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali, Indonesia, to discuss a wide range of issues related to the future of the Internet–from online privacy to management of domain names to NSA surveillance to human rights in cyberspace. Much of the discussion in Bali revolved around a proposal by ICANN and the Brazilian government to hold a high-level conference on Internet issues in Brazil in late April or early May. At this event more than a dozen IGF participants shared their observations and experiences and participated in a public forum. It was webcast live via the Internet Society Chapters Channel . *View on YouTube*: http://youtu.be/BnECxclnaZc *Transcribe on AMARA*: http://www.amara.org/en/videos/ARrxiksDgM2A/ *Twitter*: #isocdc | #igf Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6075 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 12 06:38:11 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 05:38:11 -0600 Subject: [governance] Fwd: I* Organizations 1net consultations on the future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131112113811.GA18762@hserus.net> "have joined together"? INET dates back from about the mid 90s at least. http://www.internetsociety.org/events/inet-conferences Fouad Bajwa [12/11/13 15:52 +0430]: >From elsewhere > > Snipped > >The various I* Organizations have joined forces to work on a project >entitled 1net. The project is hosting a free and open online forum >about the future of Internet governance. The project has a dedicated >website online at http://www.1net.org/content/en, and has a Twitter >feed at https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=1netorg. > >Snipped > > >-- >Regards. >-------------------------- >Fouad Bajwa >ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor >My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your 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 soekpe at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 06:52:13 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 18:52:13 +0700 Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Nov 12, 2013 8:53 AM, "Antonio Medina Gómez" wrote: > +1 > Antonio Medina Gómez > > > 2013/11/12 Kabani > >> +1 >> >> >> On Monday, November 11, 2013, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >>> Dear IGC members, >>> I would like to nominate Imran Ahmed Shah for the position as >>> Co-cordinator. I feel very honoured that Ginger should have nominated me, >>> and I am very grateful to all those who have given me their support, but I >>> also feel that it is important to the IGC's survival that there should be a >>> choice of nominees, and I know that Imran has had nominations on previous >>> occasions. I also feel that he may be able to bring a different perspective >>> to the work that the co-coordinators need to do. I have asked Imran and he >>> told me that he would accept nomination. >>> I hope that before nominations close on 1st December there will be other >>> candidates as well who would be willing to give their time >>> Best wishes >>> Deirdre. >>> >>> >>> On 10 November 2013 08:23, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>> >>>> Further to the *June 6, 2013* notice for calls for coordinator, we are >>>> happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on December >>>> 1, 2013. >>>> >>>> For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, >>>> there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of >>>> candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was why >>>> we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about candidates. >>>> This year, we started making early calls to start thinking about nominating >>>> someone or standing for the elections for the 2014-2016 term. >>>> >>>> We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating >>>> yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please liaise >>>> with them and nominate them on the list. >>>> >>>> *The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 *to allow for >>>> elections. having served in this position for what will soon be two years, >>>> I thought I should add some reflections that may help those who are >>>> thinking of standing or to encourage people to stand. >>>> >>>> *Reflections * >>>> The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the >>>> facilitation of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and >>>> encouraging members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the Charter >>>> and providing a platform for advocacy. The role and responsibilities will >>>> be an opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes antagonistic views. It >>>> requires strength, courage and emotional intelligence to manage the >>>> responsibilities. For me personally, it has been an incredible opportunity >>>> learning about dealing with diverse voices and I can say that I have learnt >>>> the discipline of restraint where at times I have had to hold back my view >>>> because facilitators have to have some form of neutrality and act in the >>>> best interests of the IGC community. >>>> >>>> Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the >>>> assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs to be >>>> clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the majority before >>>> deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time for Internet >>>> Governance. >>>> >>>> The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC >>>> community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally with >>>> the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. >>>> >>>> *Current Nominations Received* >>>> >>>> 1. Deirdre Williams >>>> 2. x >>>> 3. x >>>> >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in >>>>> standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to >>>>> nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So >>>>> that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to >>>>> choose from. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>> Suva >>>>> Fiji >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Nov 12 07:14:41 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 13:14:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Nov 12 06:44:14 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:44:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] five IETF hums Message-ID: This is a mail from Russ Housley. Noteworthy: (1) they were formed very quickly without full exploration at the plenary (2) there are concerns that opportunistic encryption could harm other security efforts. The conclusion could be that discussion is to be as informed as is possible and that the IETF community will take steps to address pervasive surveillance. All this obviously depends on "The BUG" resolution. http://bramsummit.org/index.php?title=Banned_Use_Gene_%28The_Bug%29_-_Mentalit%C3%A9_de_l%27utilisation_Restreinte_%28MUR%29 The resolution is most probably not at the IETF level. We do not use (trust?) IPsec while we know about SSH. jfc >On 11/6/13 12:41 PM, Russ Housley wrote: >At the end of the IETF88 Technical Plenary, there were five >hums. This note is to provide the text of the hums and the >community response. The people in the room were asked to hum for >YES if they agreed with the statement and hum for NO if they >disagreed with the statement. > >1. The IETF is willing to respond to the pervasive surveillance attack? >Overwhelming YES. Silence for NO. > >2. Pervasive surveillance is an attack, and the IETF needs to adjust >our threat model to consider it when developing standards track specifications. >Very strong YES. Silence for NO. > >3. The IETF should include encryption, even outside authentication, >where practical. >Strong YES. Silence for NO. > >4. The IETF should strive for end-to-end encryption, even when >there are middleboxes in the path. >Mixed response, but more YES than NO. > >5. Many insecure protocols are used in the Internet today, and the >IETF should create a secure alternative for the popular ones. >Mostly YES, but some 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Nov 12 07:14:19 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 13:14:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] NSA/USCC split? Message-ID: FYI. http://fcw.com/articles/2013/11/07/white-house-considers-ending-dual-nsa-cyber-command-role.aspx The debate on this issue will most probably teach us a lot on the real intrication of the digital and human ecosystems. K. Alexander memoirs will be something interesting to read. Probably an hot theme in the next round of head of states campaigns. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 08:26:40 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:56:40 +0430 Subject: [governance] Fwd: I* Organizations 1net consultations on the future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20131112113811.GA18762@hserus.net> References: <20131112113811.GA18762@hserus.net> Message-ID: Its a 1 as in digit 1 and not an I or i, this is something the i-star or internet star organizations are doing and they've called in others or somethin. Haven't really gone through the fine print of things and there isn't much on their website either.....the twitter feed is also a handful of followers so really don't know how much this is going on....just shared the information as I found out.... On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > "have joined together"? > > INET dates back from about the mid 90s at least. > > http://www.internetsociety.org/events/inet-conferences > > Fouad Bajwa [12/11/13 15:52 +0430]: > >> From elsewhere >> >> Snipped >> >> The various I* Organizations have joined forces to work on a project >> entitled 1net. The project is hosting a free and open online forum >> about the future of Internet governance. The project has a dedicated >> website online at http://www.1net.org/content/en, and has a Twitter >> feed at https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=1netorg. >> >> Snipped >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor >> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 12 08:50:40 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:20:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: I* Organizations 1net consultations on the future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131112113811.GA18762@hserus.net> Message-ID: <8E0D12CE-FADA-4822-ADB7-617BC10F70CD@hserus.net> Ah ok. Thanks. This website isn't the clearest - I am sure something will turn up on who they are and whether they can be worked with. --srs (iPad) > On 12-Nov-2013, at 18:56, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Its a 1 as in digit 1 and not an I or i, this is something the i-star > or internet star organizations are doing and they've called in others > or somethin. Haven't really gone through the fine print of things and > there isn't much on their website either.....the twitter feed is also > a handful of followers so really don't know how much this is going > on....just shared the information as I found out.... > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> "have joined together"? >> >> INET dates back from about the mid 90s at least. >> >> http://www.internetsociety.org/events/inet-conferences >> >> Fouad Bajwa [12/11/13 15:52 +0430]: >> >>> From elsewhere >>> >>> Snipped >>> >>> The various I* Organizations have joined forces to work on a project >>> entitled 1net. The project is hosting a free and open online forum >>> about the future of Internet governance. The project has a dedicated >>> website online at http://www.1net.org/content/en, and has a Twitter >>> feed at https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=1netorg. >>> >>> Snipped >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards. >>> -------------------------- >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor >>> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >>> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 08:55:24 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 18:25:24 +0430 Subject: [governance] 'Aiding Privacy' - Do development projects violate privacy in developing countries? Message-ID: Here is a shocker, from Privacy international. For some of us who belong to the field of development, a word of caution, be careful in how you handle and what you do with other people's information and data. There should some agreed principles that first do not violate fundamental human rights and the right to privacy. For people working in hard areas, (as I am now), it is important that processes in are place to manage any such electronic data and possibilities if major personal identifiers are either encrypted or not used. The challenge is in disaster response and management situations, human migration, refugee situations, health and epidemic management and aid, where direct collection of data occurs. There is no end to the sophistication of systems. This also why Civil Society's pursuit to hold equal footing in all matters IG and Electronic Data Management and its possible uses/misuses is a very important issue. 'Aiding Privacy' - Do development projects violate privacy in developing countries? Blogpost: https://www.privacyinternational.org/blog/development-and-humanitarian-aid-initiatives-enable-surveillance-in-developing-countries -- 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 arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Tue Nov 12 09:49:36 2013 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:49:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1384267776.36139.YahooMailNeo@web28906.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Hello there, Great nitiative to start thinking of this very early. I support Mrs Deidre and would have nomited her even before Ginger did. She is the best person to coordinate this patform as she was the first one intriducing me to it. She has a heart for that. Best, Arsene   ------------------------------------------------------ Arsene Tungali, *Executive Director, Rudi International email: info at rudiinternational.org Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rudiinternational  web: www.rudiinternational.org *Agronomy Sciences, Goma University Blog: http://tungali.blogspot.com/ Tel.: +243993810967, 853181857 Facebook-Twitter: Arsene Tungali Skype: arsenetungali Demmocratic Republic of Congo Le Mardi 12 novembre 2013 9h53, Antonio Medina Gómez a écrit : +1 Antonio Medina Gómez 2013/11/12 Kabani +1  > > >On Monday, November 11, 2013, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >Dear IGC members, >>I would like to nominate Imran Ahmed Shah for the position as Co-cordinator. I feel very honoured that Ginger should have nominated me, and I am very grateful to all those who have given me their support, but I also feel that it is important to the IGC's survival that there should be a choice of nominees, and I know that Imran has had nominations on previous occasions. I also feel that he may be able to bring a different perspective to the work that the co-coordinators need to do. I have asked Imran and he told me that he would accept nomination. >>I hope that before nominations close on 1st December there will be other candidates as well who would be willing to give their time >>Best wishes >>Deirdre. >> >> >> >>On 10 November 2013 08:23, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> >>>Further to the June 6, 2013 notice for calls for coordinator, we are happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on December 1, 2013. >>> >>>For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was why we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about candidates. This year, we started making early calls to start thinking about nominating someone or standing for the elections for the 2014-2016 term. >>> >>> >>>We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please liaise with them and nominate them on the list. >>> >>>The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 to allow for elections. having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I thought I should add some reflections that may help those who are thinking of standing or to encourage people to stand. >>> >>>Reflections >>>The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the facilitation of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and encouraging members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the Charter and providing a platform for advocacy. The role and responsibilities will be an opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes antagonistic views. It requires strength, courage and emotional intelligence to manage the responsibilities. For me personally, it has been an incredible opportunity learning about dealing with diverse voices and I can say that I have learnt the discipline of restraint where at times I have had to hold back my view because facilitators have to have some form of neutrality and act in the best interests of the IGC community. >>> >>>Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs to be clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the majority before deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time for Internet Governance. >>> >>> >>> >>>The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally with the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. >>> >>> >>>Current Nominations Received >>> >>> 1. Deirdre Williams >>> 2. x >>> 3. x >>> >>> >>> >>>Kind Regards, >>>Sala >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>>Dear All, >>>> >>>>Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like  would like to nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to choose from. >>>> >>>>Thank you. >>>> >>>>Kind Regards, >>>> >>>>-- >>>> >>>>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>P.O. Box 17862 >>>>Suva >>>>Fiji >>>> >>>> >>>>Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>> >>>>  >>>> >>>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> >>-- >>“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >-- >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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Nov 12 10:41:50 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:41:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net, etc. In-Reply-To: <3D214D25-1B29-4DC6-9F90-EDBACC4FE5BE@glocom.ac.jp> References: <3D214D25-1B29-4DC6-9F90-EDBACC4FE5BE@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Dear Joana; thank you for the information. So far we therefore have now (http://bramsummit.org/index.php?title=Brazil_MultiStakeholderism_Summit:Community_portal) a grassroots call by (by creation date): 1. civil society / OpenUse: site: http://bramsummit.org mailing list: http://www.bramsummit.org/mailman/listinfo/agora_bramsummit.org 2. ITU: http://ideas.itu.int/category/1424 mailing list: included. Hastily installed. Could be bugged. 3. I* coalition/dialogue: 1net.org mailing list https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination Who's next? At 15:09 12/11/2013, Joana Varon wrote: >Dear all, >Hello! Sorry for being away on bb threads, I was offline for a few >days, I´m catching up with the other emails, but please, find here >quick updates on the debates about the I*coalition/dialogue, which >now is being called dialogue or 1net: >- Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue, >particularly business, remains calling meeting). For that, the >dialogue, following our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 >representatives from each stakeholder (civil society, business, >technical community), to identify 3 representatives to participate >in the preparations. I know that the whole current issue is to make believe that the business and civil society techies coalesce under the statUS-quo restrained architectural culture of the I* $ociety. The problem is that (1) IAB's RFC 3869 has well documented why this was not the case (2) you take the risk of a technical clash at the summit as the Brazilian FLOSS community will be there in force and are technically competent people. I would therefore suggest to play lower key in talking of civil society's, business' and users' engineers? At 15:52 12/11/2013, Adam Peake wrote: >Quick question - in the opening and closing sessions in Bali, >representatives of Brazil said the meeting would be open for all to >help organize and for all to participate: an open invitation to an >open meeting. Was this discussed on the list, and they instead >decided on a more limited steering committee? (I will try to look >at the archives). If this is a MS summit, it is everybody's summit or it is nothing. Could it be any reason why what will be discussed would be different from what T&L-paid and remote attendees will want to discuss? Best jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu Tue Nov 12 10:54:43 2013 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu ('Yuliya Morenets') Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:54:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Licences for Europe_WG2_TaC International_ victim of aggressive communication prepared by the EDRI Message-ID: <559a0c56969022cf9e19e17275e3d6b0114bbff8@ssl0.ovh.net> Dear all, As you might know, our organization, member of the Working Group 2, Licences for Europe, TaC International has become a victim of the aggressive communication prepared by the EDRI representative, disseminated in the format of a newsletter on the 9th of October 2013. It contains statements of defamatory nature, which target the organisation and its representative, Ms Yuliya Morenets, at a personal level.  As you know, all communications made by TaC during its engagement in the Licences for Europe Working Group 2 are publicly available at the European Commission website dedicated to the working Group (http://ec.europa.eu/licences-for-europe-dialogue/en).  TaC believes in cooperation and dialogue, therefore the author of the EDRI communication has been asked to remove the mentioned defamatory content and is informed about the legal consequences of disseminating information of aggressive and defamatory nature. Please find attached the open statement prepared by TaC President, which is publicly communicated in different communities.  I look forward to working together, With best regards, Yuliya Morenets TaC-Together against Cybercrime International -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Open statement_EDRI.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 107809 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 11:33:55 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:33:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net, etc. In-Reply-To: <20131112154210.308EA3287F3@a2knetwork.org> References: <3D214D25-1B29-4DC6-9F90-EDBACC4FE5BE@glocom.ac.jp> <20131112154210.308EA3287F3@a2knetwork.org> Message-ID: Hi Morfin, We did not know about this wiki. Do you know who is moving it forward? The editor is Sysop, but nothing on him ... tks On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:41 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: > Dear Joana; > thank you for the information. So far we therefore have now ( > http://bramsummit.org/index.php?title=Brazil_MultiStakeholderism_Summit: > Community_portal) a grassroots call by (by creation date): > > 1. civil society / OpenUse: site: http://bramsummit.org mailing list: > http://www.bramsummit.org/mailman/listinfo/agora_bramsummit.org > 2. ITU: http://ideas.itu.int/category/1424 mailing list: included. > Hastily installed. Could be bugged. > 3. I* coalition/dialogue: 1net.org mailing list < > https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination>https: > //nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination > > Who's next? > > At 15:09 12/11/2013, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Dear all, >> Hello! Sorry for being away on bb threads, I was offline for a few days, >> I´m catching up with the other emails, but please, find here quick updates >> on the debates about the I*coalition/dialogue, which now is being called >> dialogue or 1net: >> > > - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue, particularly >> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue, following our >> move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives from each >> stakeholder (civil society, business, technical community), to identify 3 >> representatives to participate in the preparations. >> > > I know that the whole current issue is to make believe that the business > and civil society techies coalesce under the statUS-quo restrained > architectural culture of the I* $ociety. The problem is that (1) IAB's RFC > 3869 has well documented why this was not the case (2) you take the risk of > a technical clash at the summit as the Brazilian FLOSS community will be > there in force and are technically competent people. I would therefore > suggest to play lower key in talking of civil society's, business' and > users' engineers? > > At 15:52 12/11/2013, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Quick question - in the opening and closing sessions in Bali, >> representatives of Brazil said the meeting would be open for all to help >> organize and for all to participate: an open invitation to an open meeting. >> Was this discussed on the list, and they instead decided on a more limited >> steering committee? (I will try to look at the archives). >> > > If this is a MS summit, it is everybody's summit or it is nothing. Could > it be any reason why what will be discussed would be different from what > T&L-paid and remote attendees will want to discuss? > > Best > jfc > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 12:07:57 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:07:57 -0800 Subject: [governance] I volunteered MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) In-Reply-To: <5280AF82.6040508@ciroap.org> References: <20131110193548.14491gp33txnqb8k@www.ciencitec.com> <5280AF82.6040508@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <01b201cedfc9$bc78ffb0$356aff10$@gmail.com> +1 M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 2:21 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] I volunteered MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) On 11/11/13 08:35, jfcallo at ciencitec.com wrote: Greetings, please accept my postulation volunteered for the NomCom I can only assume that the masters of the black box don't want me on the MAG, judging how many times I've been nominated and passed over. This may indicate that I can do more good outside the MAG than inside (to paraphase Groucho Marx, I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would accept me as a member). -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 12 13:24:09 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 18:24:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> <20131110124021.E3FDD3287CC@a2knetwork.org> Message-ID: Dear JFC, On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:01 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > Dear Mawaki, > two comments: > > At 20:28 10/11/2013, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> #3 That procedure does not have to be carried out publicly on a >> discussion list such as these ones --for, among other things, the safety >> reasons and possible risks that have already been mentioned. A structure >> may be put in place (NomCom?) to receive such statements. >> > > We know from experience there only are public discussions, with the help > of NSA and/or wikileaks and co. As E.S (Eric Schmidt, not Edward Snowden) > puts it: if you do not want something to be published on the internet do > not do it. > Right! Except that I am pretty sure whatever people would have to disclose in a case like this would have been already communicated through some other email exchanges, say, between them and their sources of funding. I believe it's always a trade-off between the stake (and benefit) one has in finding out and the cost of finding out. That cost is somehow raised by sending the information to a limited group of trusted professional individuals, and further raised by encrypted the concerned communications. But there will never going to be 100 per cent secrecy, we agree on that. > > > there are basically three ways for having money: i) you sell something, >> goods or services; ii) you tax someone else; or iii) someone chooses to >> give you the money for whatever reason, possibly including a service you >> didn't even set out to sell. In CS we do at least a little bit of the three >> --through grant proposals or consultancy, member dues (albeit with less >> dire consequences than defaulting on your income tax), and fundraising or >> donations CS orgs receive. But it looks like the latter category is what >> supports the most CS advocacy activities. That makes you think twice about >> where we actually are on the power map. Maybe there is some solace to be >> found in the fact that many of the sources CS orgs get money from are also >> part of CS, to begin with: private citizens who once were industrious >> enough and with enough ingenuity to become wealthy and set up foundations >> or other charity orgs. Short of that, CS would perhaps have to receive the >> bulk of its money from the people who tax other people. >> > > The origin of the money is not a problem. The problem is the > non-disclosure. > Again, agree with that. That's why the above section of my message you're referring to was not integrated as part of my core points but in manner of concluding reflection. And I mentioned the perspective that it provides about CS in terms of our place on the power map. That was all my observation was intended for, no more no less. > There are several ways around that can be explored: > > * a CS oath, as for the Olympics. > * the sponsorship to be disclosed at registration. > * the creation of a CSFoundation to collect and attribute fundings in a > fairly ballanced manner and published policy. > Its CSnomcom list would gather reps from all the participating CS > organizations. > Interesting suggestions, especially the last one. Isn't that the model BB's approach is hinting at (except that it is not a foundation and it's limited to BB coalition/ participants/ members --whatever applies)? I'm just asking... While a significant portion of groups like these are organizations with their own funding and programs for working (if only partly) on things that are related to issues we are concerned with here, individual membership are just are valuable and as legitimate. Therefore, it becomes clear to me that there is some discrepancy to reckon with in claiming some identity --as in "global CS"-- for these groups if there is no funding mechanisms (and clear governance mechanisms, for that matter) at that same level of such global identity. Otherwise, as is currently the case, we become at critical moments of decisions and actions reduced to an opportune coalition of whoever has gotten the resources to show up, without any sense of representativeness whatsoever. Best, Mawaki > > jfc > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 14:15:04 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:15:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] great picture from Brazil for blog posts Message-ID: https://twitter.com/search?q=%23MarcoCivil&src=hash it would be great if your organizations could help with the "noise" we are trying to make in Twitter on Marco Civil - which was to be voted today, but... C -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 14:15:34 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:15:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: great picture from Brazil for blog posts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You can use both #MarcoCiviland #MarcoCivilJa On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > https://twitter.com/search?q=%23MarcoCivil&src=hash > > it would be great if your organizations could help with the "noise" we are > trying to make in Twitter on Marco Civil - which was to be voted today, > but... > > C > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jaryn56 at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 14:38:41 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:38:41 -0500 Subject: Fwd: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 5 Days to Go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Voluntarios para MAG NomCom Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Devon Blake Date: 2013/11/11 Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 5 Days to Go To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Cc: Imran Ahmed Shah , Jeremy Hunsinger , Sonigitu Ekpe I have not been a good NonCOM the l;ast time around, But I am volunteering again. Devon On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > > The NomCom process can be found here: http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process > Due to the tight deadline we have, we apologise in advance for the frequency of the emails on this subject but it is necessary. > > Even if you do not wish to be selected, your input is valuable and you can play an active role in seeking out appropriate candidates for either the NomCom or MAG. The role of the NomCom is important because out of the 25, only 5 will be randomly selected to identify our nominees for the MAG selection. > > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > Adam Peake > > Ian Peter > > Kossi Amessinou > > Angela Daly > > Jeremy Hunsinger > > > > [We need 20 more to volunteer for the NomCom] > > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > Asif Kabani > > Rudi Vansnick > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> With reference to the following Call for the Nominations (for IGF MAG), and subsequent messages from Mr Izumi Aizu & Ms Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, I would nominate myself for the IGF MAG. >> >> I recently has organized a workshop at AP regional IGF 2013 at Seoul with the title of Governance for the Internet of Kids, Teenagers and Youngsters. Workshop detail & my profile may be find at APrIGF Website (http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-32/ , http://2013.rigf.asia/day3/ and http://2013.rigf.asia/speakers-profiles/#Imran). >> >> Further information as mentioned for EOI, I will arrange to submit to the Coordinators and MAG Nomcom. >> >> Thanking you and Best Regards >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> Member Internet Governance Caucus >> Founding President IGF Pakistan >> NCUC Member (since 2009) >> ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Sonigitu Ekpe >> To: Jeremy Hunsinger ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 11:59 >> Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT >> >> I volunteer to serve on the MAG. >> Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >> "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >> +234 8027510179 >> On Nov 10, 2013 5:37 AM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" wrote: >> >> I can do nomcom >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: >> >> Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >> >> Adame Peake >> Ian Peter >> Kossi Amessinou >> >> [We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom] >> Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >> >> Asif Kabani >> Rudi Vansnick >> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: >> >> Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >> >> Adame Peake >> Ian Peter >> Kossi Amessinou >> >> Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >> >> Asif Kabani >> Rudi Vansnick >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Devon Blake ICT and Development Consultant 29 Dominica Drive Kgn 5 ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 To be kind, To be helpful, To network Earthwise ... For Life! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 12 15:22:15 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:22:15 -0800 Subject: Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society Message-ID: <026701cedfe4$e10b8850$a32298f0$@gmail.com> As we all know the Internet Governance space is becoming a very hot topic and subject to increasing scrutiny, internal manoeuvering and external intervention. This isn't at all surprising given the vast, even world altering resources of wealth and power (both of the passive informational and aggressive cyberwar varieties) that are potentially being affected. Any adjustment, however minor in the overall (governance or other) ecology of the Internet now has likely ramifications impacting everyone, everywhere, and in a vast multitude of ways both visible and invisible. Notably, the overwhelming thrust from a variety of directions is that the form that this Internet Governance takes is to be "multi-stakeholder" where the "stakeholders" are roughly defined as governments, the technical community, the private sector and civil society. The recent Snowden revelations have shaken the on-going rather comfortable and even Pollyanna-ish sense that the overall deployment of the Internet was somehow being done in a manner and with effects that were supportive of the broad well-being of humanity. The revelations have for many shattered this belief along with the trust that underlay so many of the relationships and transactions on which the Internet is built and continues to operate. This framework of trust has been in in the words of many at the recent IETF meeting, "attacked", and for a significant proportion of those thinking of such matters it has been fatally undermined. The Technical Community appears to be still reeling from the discovery that the "good faith" of many of those that they considered colleagues and partners was in fact "bad faith"; and the associated interventions were in various instances undertaken not in the interests of humanity as a whole but rather in support of narrow and self-serving national (and it would appear corporate) interests. The further revelations of the systematic incursions into the internal technical operations of certain US based Internet mega-corporations has evidently resulted in both anger and an associated recognition on their part that the agencies and interests involved were not operating in a manner in keeping with normally recognized business practices and interests. It is thus astonishing that Civil Society, in the IG context the weakest and least resourced of the "stakeholders", should be asked to accept on "good faith" that its activities and on-going deliberation will not have been subverted in precisely the same ways and in support of the same interests as have been the on-going activities of the Technical and Business Sector stakeholders. In fact it would be astonishing in the process of subverting the Internet to certain national and corporate interests, if CS as a key component of Internet Governance were to have been overlooked. The sad but I think inevitable conclusion is that I can see no basis on which to have continued "trust" in the various CS institutions or activities since I see no basis on which I can determine the good/bad faith of the various actors/interveners in those spaces. While I can see a basis for finding collaborators and like-minded folks to pursue specific activities/interventions based on a clear articulation of shared norms/visions, beyond that I see little basis for going forward in the current CS formulations and significant dangers more generally if the current CS spaces are taken as sole or even significant representations of the policy positions of global CS in relation to Internet Governance. (It follows as well given the above that the overall commitments and celebration of Multi-stakeholderism as the preferred model for Internet Governance (and increasingly for governance overall in the Internet age) needs to be seriously re-thought as per my recent blogpost. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-open-internet-society-and-its-e nemies-can-multistakeholderism-survive-information-dominance/ 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 genekimmelman at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 16:01:28 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:01:28 -0500 Subject: Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society In-Reply-To: <026701cedfe4$e10b8850$a32298f0$@gmail.com> References: <026701cedfe4$e10b8850$a32298f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I certainly don't want to even begin to try to solve for all the problems we face. And I fully understand the outrage at recent revelations, plus the desire to focus on transparency as a means to build trust. At the same time, I myself am happy to "opt in" to a group like Best Bits that seeks to take concrete steps to address important issues, and of necessity requires me to trust that others who opt in do so in good faith. If I find that faith to be misplaced based on the actions of others, I will be disappointed and seek another platform to participate on. In the meantime, I am comfortable working with the loose coalition of groups that has been coming together around the Best Bits platform. And I certainly can understand that others may make a different decision about participating in this endeavor. I'm not sure I see a reason to continue the same conversation we've had for the last few weeks. Maybe those who want to participate in Best Bits as it currently is constituted can do so, and others can just drop out and quite complaining about it. On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:22 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > As we all know the Internet Governance space is becoming a very hot topic > and subject to increasing scrutiny, internal manoeuvering and external > intervention. > > This isn't at all surprising given the vast, even world altering resources > of wealth and power (both of the passive informational and aggressive > cyberwar varieties) that are potentially being affected. > > Any adjustment, however minor in the overall (governance or other) ecology > of the Internet now has likely ramifications impacting everyone, > everywhere, and in a vast multitude of ways both visible and invisible. > > Notably, the overwhelming thrust from a variety of directions is that the > form that this Internet Governance takes is to be "multi-stakeholder" where > the "stakeholders" are roughly defined as governments, the technical > community, the private sector and civil society. > > The recent Snowden revelations have shaken the on-going rather comfortable > and even Pollyanna-ish sense that the overall deployment of the Internet > was > somehow being done in a manner and with effects that were supportive of the > broad well-being of humanity. > > The revelations have for many shattered this belief along with the trust > that underlay so many of the relationships and transactions on which the > Internet is built and continues to operate. This framework of trust has > been > in in the words of many at the recent IETF meeting, "attacked", and for a > significant proportion of those thinking of such matters it has been > fatally > undermined. > > The Technical Community appears to be still reeling from the discovery that > the "good faith" of many of those that they considered colleagues and > partners was in fact "bad faith"; and the associated interventions were in > various instances undertaken not in the interests of humanity as a whole > but > rather in support of narrow and self-serving national (and it would appear > corporate) interests. > > The further revelations of the systematic incursions into the internal > technical operations of certain US based Internet mega-corporations has > evidently resulted in both anger and an associated recognition on their > part > that the agencies and interests involved were not operating in a manner in > keeping with normally recognized business practices and interests. > > It is thus astonishing that Civil Society, in the IG context the weakest > and > least resourced of the "stakeholders", should be asked to accept on "good > faith" that its activities and on-going deliberation will not have been > subverted in precisely the same ways and in support of the same interests > as > have been the on-going activities of the Technical and Business Sector > stakeholders. > > In fact it would be astonishing in the process of subverting the Internet > to > certain national and corporate interests, if CS as a key component of > Internet Governance were to have been overlooked. > > The sad but I think inevitable conclusion is that I can see no basis on > which to have continued "trust" in the various CS institutions or > activities > since I see no basis on which I can determine the good/bad faith of the > various actors/interveners in those spaces. > > While I can see a basis for finding collaborators and like-minded folks to > pursue specific activities/interventions based on a clear articulation of > shared norms/visions, beyond that I see little basis for going forward in > the current CS formulations and significant dangers more generally if the > current CS spaces are taken as sole or even significant representations of > the policy positions of global CS in relation to Internet Governance. > > (It follows as well given the above that the overall commitments and > celebration of Multi-stakeholderism as the preferred model for Internet > Governance (and increasingly for governance overall in the Internet age) > needs to be seriously re-thought as per my recent blogpost. > > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-open-internet-society-and-its-e > nemies-can-multistakeholderism-survive-information-dominance/ > > M > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 arin.net Tue Nov 12 16:20:35 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:20:35 +0000 Subject: Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society In-Reply-To: <026701cedfe4$e10b8850$a32298f0$@gmail.com> References: <026701cedfe4$e10b8850$a32298f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2621D9A7-F2EE-4DDB-89B1-984B49F8644B@arin.net> On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:22 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > ... > (It follows as well given the above that the overall commitments and > celebration of Multi-stakeholderism as the preferred model for Internet > Governance (and increasingly for governance overall in the Internet age) > needs to be seriously re-thought as per my recent blogpost. Michael - It has been nearly a month since that blogpost - >> "Can we in fact proceed or accept the outcome of any MS process without a very close re-examination and structuring of those processes; that is, to develop a means for providing appropriate safeguards against contamination, subversion, distortion or interest capture by or on behalf of one or another of the significant players ... My question is: "Have you now conducted such a reexamination, and/or have you developed any means for providing appropriate safeguards against contamination, subversion, distortion or interest capture?" I stand by willing and able to help, but as I noted in my reply, I am not aware of any magic solution to this problem, and can only suggest that 'having all parties speak up and “go on record” with their beliefs and assumptions might (over time) provide some protection against actual bad actors in the process.' If you have come up with any better mechanisms for multi-stakeholder participation (ones that avoid some of the risks noted above), it would very be helpful if you could share your insights. Until then, we are left to muddle along with the mechanisms and practices that are presently in place. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 12 16:52:24 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 13:52:24 -0800 Subject: Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society In-Reply-To: <2621D9A7-F2EE-4DDB-89B1-984B49F8644B@arin.net> References: <026701cedfe4$e10b8850$a32298f0$@gmail.com> <2621D9A7-F2EE-4DDB-89B1-984B49F8644B@arin.net> Message-ID: <02b601cedff1$7947bce0$6bd736a0$@gmail.com> Fair question John and I should say that I did notice a rather more nuanced approach to the discussion of MSism at least by some in Bali. I think one way to start is by not referring to MSism without some sort of qualification as for example limiting it to areas concerning consultation, discussion or process and not having it refer to "governance" per se. A second way to proceed is to delimit applying MSism (e.g. as in having those directly involved in the outcome of the decisions having a role in making the decisions) to those areas having to do with the governance or management of various of the technical aspects of the Internet and not the more traditional areas of public policy e.g. taxation, various human rights elements, costing etc. A third way is to recognize that to all intents and purposes CS in its current form in the IG is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and accepting the implications of that for the overall MS model. The implications of taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism is so important for various of the actors involved then some significant efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable, effective and legitimate partner. M -----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 1:21 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: bestbits; Anriette Esterhuysen Subject: Re: Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:22 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > ... > (It follows as well given the above that the overall commitments and > celebration of Multi-stakeholderism as the preferred model for > Internet Governance (and increasingly for governance overall in the > Internet age) needs to be seriously re-thought as per my recent blogpost. Michael - It has been nearly a month since that blogpost - >> "Can we in fact proceed or accept the outcome of any MS process without a very close re-examination and structuring of those processes; that is, to develop a means for providing appropriate safeguards against contamination, subversion, distortion or interest capture by or on behalf of one or another of the significant players ... My question is: "Have you now conducted such a reexamination, and/or have you developed any means for providing appropriate safeguards against contamination, subversion, distortion or interest capture?" I stand by willing and able to help, but as I noted in my reply, I am not aware of any magic solution to this problem, and can only suggest that 'having all parties speak up and "go on record" with their beliefs and assumptions might (over time) provide some protection against actual bad actors in the process.' If you have come up with any better mechanisms for multi-stakeholder participation (ones that avoid some of the risks noted above), it would very be helpful if you could share your insights. Until then, we are left to muddle along with the mechanisms and practices that are presently in place. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 12 17:24:00 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:24:00 +1200 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 2 Days to Go Message-ID: Dear All, As you know there are only two days to do before we close the call for the NomCom that will appoint the MAG nominees submitted by the IGC. Here is the recent update: Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] 1. Adam Peake 2. Ian Peter 3. Kossi Amessinou 4. Angela Daly 5. Jeremy Hunsinger 6. Kerry Brown 7. Chaitanya Dhareshwar 8. Erick Iriarte Ahon 9. Ginger Paque 10. Jose F Callo Romero 11. Suresh Ramasubramanium 12. Badouin Schombe 13. Robin Gross 14. Tapani Tarvainen 15. David Cake 16. Jeremy Malcolm 17. Chun Eung Hwi 18. Antonio Medina Gomez 19. Shaila Rao Mistry 20. Deirdre Williams 21. Devon Blake 22. José Félix Arias Ynche [We need 3 more to volunteer for the NomCom] Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. 1. Asif Kabani 2. Rudi Vansnick 3. Sonigitu Ekpe 4. Imran Ahmed Shah 5. Fouad Bajwa 6. Katim S Touray Note: Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification as to what specifically he is volunteering for NomCom or MAG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 12 17:30:49 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:30:49 +1200 Subject: [governance] Update: Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] Message-ID: Dear All, This is an update to advise that so far we have two nominations for the coordinator position:- 1) Deirdre Williams 2) Imran Ahmed Shah We welcome more nominations. Kindly note that Coordinators, can encourage people to stand but cannot directly nominate as we will be facilitating the elections process so in the interest of accountability and transparency, we have to maintain our neutrality. For those who are thinking of standing in the elections, please refer to my email below. Kind Regards, Sala (soon to be outgoing co-coordinator) On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Further to the *June 6, 2013* notice for calls for coordinator, we are > happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on December > 1, 2013. > > For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, > there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of > candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was why > we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about candidates. > This year, we started making early calls to start thinking about nominating > someone or standing for the elections for the 2014-2016 term. > > We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating > yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please liaise > with them and nominate them on the list. > > *The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 *to allow for elections. > having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I thought I > should add some reflections that may help those who are thinking of > standing or to encourage people to stand. > > *Reflections * > The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the facilitation > of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and encouraging > members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the Charter and > providing a platform for advocacy. The role and responsibilities will be an > opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes antagonistic views. It requires > strength, courage and emotional intelligence to manage the > responsibilities. For me personally, it has been an incredible opportunity > learning about dealing with diverse voices and I can say that I have learnt > the discipline of restraint where at times I have had to hold back my view > because facilitators have to have some form of neutrality and act in the > best interests of the IGC community. > > Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the > assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs to be > clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the majority before > deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time for Internet > Governance. > > The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC > community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally with > the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. > > *Current Nominations Received* > > 1. Deirdre Williams > 2. x > 3. x > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in >> standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to >> nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So >> that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to >> choose from. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 12 17:39:03 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:39:03 +1300 Subject: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC In-Reply-To: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5282AE07.5000308@apc.org> Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general note on the summary of the meeting: http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/ regards Joy Liddicoat On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear people, > > Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting > just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest > edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in > Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. > > In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the > advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this > phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always > taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to > suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet. > > Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in > PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed > -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has > not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such, > and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet > requires periodic revisions. > > The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF > should follow, as described in its paragraph 72: > > ------ > 72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, > to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum > for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance > Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to: > > a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet > governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, > stability and development of the Internet. > > b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and > discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body. > > c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other > institutions on matters under their purview. > > d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in > this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific > and technical communities. > > e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the > availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world. > > f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing > and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from > developing countries. > > g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant > bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations. > > h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing > countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. > > i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS > principles in Internet governance processes. > > j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources. > > k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse > of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users. > > l) Publish its proceedings. > ------ > > It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF. > First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented > forum, not merely a sequence of events. > > Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be > generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which > have been basically ignored by the UN. > > The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its > mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda > have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which > is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically > on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the > expertises needed to carry out this challenge . > > It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or > might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it > might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process. > > As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced > cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development > (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN > General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has > revealed some worrying weaknesses . > > The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the > production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There > were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil > society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the > business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing > countries. > > It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including > the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the > APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of > the various views of the working group in relation to themes of > cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is > attached in PDF] > > The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal > the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis > Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet > Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively, > significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics > possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group > difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to > group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group > ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The > perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG > and the WSIS process is inevitable . > > One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants > are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not > necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar > to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both > the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report. > > Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this > process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate > below. > > A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an > interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and > possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for > easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of > the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and > consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their > suggestions: > > ------ > Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and > Observers > > 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a > reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living > document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and > responsibilities of all participants; > > 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined > by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles > were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva > Declaration of Principles; > > 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it > and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance; > > 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended > in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75; > > 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for > Enhanced Cooperation; > > 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms spring into existence organically > as they are needed and that there is no need to create new mechanisms > in a top down manner; > > 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand > internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking > into account, its multi-stakeholder nature; > > 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda > defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation; > > 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that > are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion > Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the > larger IGF community; > > 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the recommendations of the CSTD WG on > IGF Improvements including its mandate to give advice to the functional > Internet governance and management organizations; > > 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the > IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters > within their mandates; > > 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF > process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other > stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal > footing; > > 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to > participate in the IGF. > > 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all > stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and > to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced. > ------ > > In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but > essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced > cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around > these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative > processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the > generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance. > > On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the > governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden: > > ------ > - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of > all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet > governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative > working methods such as remote participation. > > - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate > through capactity building, including but not limited to, training > programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing. > > - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and > consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates > affordable access for all stakeholders. > > - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to > empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework > that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights > online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support > mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships. > ------ > > At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can > help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 17:46:18 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:46:18 +1200 Subject: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC In-Reply-To: <5282AE07.5000308@apc.org> References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> <5282AE07.5000308@apc.org> Message-ID: Thank you Joy for sharing your summary with us. This is very useful. I would invite all IGC subscribers to read Carlos, Joy and Avri's posts of the WGEC as it is very useful. The #WGEC on Twitter that was used during the meeting will also show the trail of discussions and thoughts. Joy I am wondering about the possibility of a Webinar where those of you who attended the WGEC can form a Panel either through a Webinar or a Google Hangout where you can talk about the recent WGEC meeting and take questions from us. If someone from the IGC would like to volunteer to look into this, it would be useful. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:39 AM, joy wrote: > Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general > note on the summary of the meeting: http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/ > > regards > > Joy Liddicoat > > On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Dear people, > > > > Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the > > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting > > just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest > > edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in > > Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. > > > > In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the > > advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this > > phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always > > taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to > > suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet. > > > > Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in > > PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed > > -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has > > not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such, > > and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet > > requires periodic revisions. > > > > The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF > > should follow, as described in its paragraph 72: > > > > ------ > > 72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, > > to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum > > for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance > > Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to: > > > > a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet > > governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, > > stability and development of the Internet. > > > > b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different > > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and > > discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body. > > > > c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other > > institutions on matters under their purview. > > > > d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in > > this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific > > and technical communities. > > > > e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the > > availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world. > > > > f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing > > and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from > > developing countries. > > > > g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant > > bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > recommendations. > > > > h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing > > countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. > > > > i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS > > principles in Internet governance processes. > > > > j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources. > > > > k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse > > of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users. > > > > l) Publish its proceedings. > > ------ > > > > It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF. > > First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented > > forum, not merely a sequence of events. > > > > Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be > > generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which > > have been basically ignored by the UN. > > > > The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its > > mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda > > have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which > > is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically > > on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the > > expertises needed to carry out this challenge . > > > > It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or > > might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it > > might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process. > > > > As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced > > cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development > > (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN > > General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has > > revealed some worrying weaknesses . > > > > The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the > > production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There > > were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil > > society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the > > business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing > > countries. > > > > It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including > > the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the > > APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of > > the various views of the working group in relation to themes of > > cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is > > attached in PDF] > > > > The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal > > the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis > > Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet > > Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively, > > significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics > > possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group > > difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to > > group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group > > ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The > > perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG > > and the WSIS process is inevitable . > > > > One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants > > are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not > > necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar > > to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both > > the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report. > > > > Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this > > process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate > > below. > > > > A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an > > interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and > > possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for > > easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of > > the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and > > consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their > > suggestions: > > > > ------ > > Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and > > Observers > > > > 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a > > reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living > > document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and > > responsibilities of all participants; > > > > 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined > > by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles > > were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva > > Declaration of Principles; > > > > 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it > > and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance; > > > > 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended > > in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75; > > > > 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for > > Enhanced Cooperation; > > > > 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms spring into existence organically > > as they are needed and that there is no need to create new mechanisms > > in a top down manner; > > > > 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand > > internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking > > into account, its multi-stakeholder nature; > > > > 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda > > defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation; > > > > 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that > > are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion > > Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the > > larger IGF community; > > > > 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the recommendations of the CSTD WG on > > IGF Improvements including its mandate to give advice to the functional > > Internet governance and management organizations; > > > > 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the > > IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters > > within their mandates; > > > > 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF > > process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other > > stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal > > footing; > > > > 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to > > participate in the IGF. > > > > 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all > > stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and > > to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced. > > ------ > > > > In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but > > essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced > > cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around > > these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative > > processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the > > generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance. > > > > On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the > > governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden: > > > > ------ > > - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of > > all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet > > governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative > > working methods such as remote participation. > > > > - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate > > through capactity building, including but not limited to, training > > programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing. > > > > - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and > > consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates > > affordable access for all stakeholders. > > > > - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to > > empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework > > that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights > > online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support > > mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships. > > ------ > > > > At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can > > help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC. > > > > fraternal regards > > > > --c.a. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 19:34:45 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:34:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC In-Reply-To: References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> <5282AE07.5000308@apc.org> Message-ID: hi all I think we need a better way to list working topics and moving work based on who wants to help with what should best bits have a wiki for work by working groups formed spontaneously based on what people want to work together on? i feel a lot get lost in the list and people get distracted over procedural issues and some times too many contributions - which are good - but some times have the effect of burying the working proposals within the Wikimedia groups, this "task forces" work well... one examples among many from that community is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council of course the goal is different, but much is how we fix our knowledge and develop work together in a transparent platform, that also allows debate and a picture of the history of it) What Carlos proposes demands a lot of work and focus, and since it is hard to set calls, we need to find ways to work asynchronously This idea would also work for the working-groups formed at the Best Bits mtg just a thought ...since this list is a high-traffic list and we could rethink what needs a working space for work and follow-ups and what actually needs to circulate/be discussed in the list On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Joy for sharing your summary with us. This is very useful. I > would invite all IGC subscribers to read Carlos, Joy and Avri's posts of > the WGEC as it is very useful. > > The #WGEC on Twitter that was used during the meeting will also show the > trail of discussions and thoughts. Joy I am wondering about the possibility > of a Webinar where those of you who attended the WGEC can form a Panel > either through a Webinar or a Google Hangout where you can talk about the > recent WGEC meeting and take questions from us. > > If someone from the IGC would like to volunteer to look into this, it > would be useful. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:39 AM, joy wrote: > >> Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general >> note on the summary of the meeting: http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/ >> >> regards >> >> Joy Liddicoat >> >> On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> > Dear people, >> > >> > Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the >> > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting >> > just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest >> > edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in >> > Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. >> > >> > In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the >> > advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this >> > phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always >> > taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to >> > suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet. >> > >> > Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in >> > PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed >> > -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has >> > not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such, >> > and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet >> > requires periodic revisions. >> > >> > The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF >> > should follow, as described in its paragraph 72: >> > >> > ------ >> > 72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, >> > to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum >> > for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance >> > Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to: >> > >> > a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet >> > governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, >> > stability and development of the Internet. >> > >> > b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different >> > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and >> > discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body. >> > >> > c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other >> > institutions on matters under their purview. >> > >> > d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in >> > this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific >> > and technical communities. >> > >> > e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the >> > availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world. >> > >> > f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing >> > and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from >> > developing countries. >> > >> > g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant >> > bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make >> recommendations. >> > >> > h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing >> > countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. >> > >> > i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS >> > principles in Internet governance processes. >> > >> > j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources. >> > >> > k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse >> > of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users. >> > >> > l) Publish its proceedings. >> > ------ >> > >> > It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF. >> > First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented >> > forum, not merely a sequence of events. >> > >> > Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be >> > generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which >> > have been basically ignored by the UN. >> > >> > The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its >> > mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda >> > have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which >> > is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically >> > on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the >> > expertises needed to carry out this challenge . >> > >> > It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or >> > might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it >> > might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process. >> > >> > As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced >> > cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development >> > (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN >> > General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has >> > revealed some worrying weaknesses . >> > >> > The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the >> > production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There >> > were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil >> > society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the >> > business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing >> > countries. >> > >> > It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including >> > the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the >> > APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of >> > the various views of the working group in relation to themes of >> > cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is >> > attached in PDF] >> > >> > The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal >> > the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis >> > Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet >> > Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively, >> > significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics >> > possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group >> > difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to >> > group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group >> > ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The >> > perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG >> > and the WSIS process is inevitable . >> > >> > One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants >> > are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not >> > necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar >> > to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both >> > the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report. >> > >> > Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this >> > process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate >> > below. >> > >> > A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an >> > interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and >> > possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for >> > easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of >> > the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and >> > consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their >> > suggestions: >> > >> > ------ >> > Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and >> > Observers >> > >> > 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a >> > reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living >> > document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and >> > responsibilities of all participants; >> > >> > 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined >> > by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles >> > were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva >> > Declaration of Principles; >> > >> > 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it >> > and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance; >> > >> > 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended >> > in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75; >> > >> > 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for >> > Enhanced Cooperation; >> > >> > 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms spring into existence organically >> > as they are needed and that there is no need to create new mechanisms >> > in a top down manner; >> > >> > 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand >> > internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking >> > into account, its multi-stakeholder nature; >> > >> > 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda >> > defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation; >> > >> > 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that >> > are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion >> > Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the >> > larger IGF community; >> > >> > 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the recommendations of the CSTD WG on >> > IGF Improvements including its mandate to give advice to the functional >> > Internet governance and management organizations; >> > >> > 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the >> > IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters >> > within their mandates; >> > >> > 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF >> > process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other >> > stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal >> > footing; >> > >> > 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to >> > participate in the IGF. >> > >> > 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all >> > stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and >> > to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced. >> > ------ >> > >> > In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but >> > essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced >> > cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around >> > these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative >> > processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the >> > generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance. >> > >> > On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the >> > governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden: >> > >> > ------ >> > - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of >> > all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet >> > governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative >> > working methods such as remote participation. >> > >> > - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate >> > through capactity building, including but not limited to, training >> > programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing. >> > >> > - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and >> > consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates >> > affordable access for all stakeholders. >> > >> > - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to >> > empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework >> > that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights >> > online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support >> > mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships. >> > ------ >> > >> > At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can >> > help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC. >> > >> > fraternal regards >> > >> > --c.a. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Nov 12 22:37:32 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:37:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: great picture from Brazil for blog posts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Carolina, Do you have a link to the current version of Marco Civil? Can try google translate to read. Thanks, Adam On Nov 13, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > You can use both #MarcoCivil and #MarcoCivilJa > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > https://twitter.com/search?q=%23MarcoCivil&src=hash > > it would be great if your organizations could help with the "noise" we are trying to make in Twitter on Marco Civil - which was to be voted today, but... > > C > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 23:34:40 2013 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 05:34:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] In-Reply-To: <1384237166.4809.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1384237166.4809.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: +1 *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2013/11/12 Imran Ahmed Shah > Dear All IGC Members, Good morning from Pakistan, > > I am thankful to Ms Deirdre Williams for nominating my name for the > election of IGC Coordinator, even she had support from Ms Ginger and her > name was also announced as candidate list. > > I hereby accept this nomination and I will try my best to meet your > expectations, if I am elected. > > DISCLOSURE: > Although I believe that there is no limitation under the IGC CS Charter as > a requisite criterion for the candidate of coordinator election to disclose > his/her funding relationship, however, for transparency purpose, I would > like disclose that I have never obtained any kind of local or foreign > funding for my initiatives which includes Linguistic Internet Council, Urdu > Internet Society, Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan, and to lead > working groups of Websphere User Group, Tivoli User Group, Rational User > Group, Technology Foresight Project of ICT for Sustainable Development > (National & Provincial Committees), organizing BIRDS Pakistan as a think > tank for innovative research, Activities related to MDG Forum 2010, > Promoting Information Security Professionals of Pakistan, Development of > Common Hub for ISOC chapter rejuvenation process in Pakistan and Organizing > Workshop at APrIGF 2003 at Seoul. I have no funding source or do not charge > any membership fee. > > However, I got ICANN’s fellowship to attend ICANN’s 36th Seoul Meeting in > 2009 which mechanism is obvious for most of the IGC members. I also have > avail support from International Islamic University, Islamabad to host IGF > remote hubs in 2011 & 2012. Similarly I also have avail support from > APrIGF to host IGF-PAK workshop at APrIGF 2003 at Seoul. > > I also feel it important to mention that I am not able for any commitment > (w.r.t. financial support to bear the expenses) for the participation > in-person to attend forth coming foreign meetings of ICANN, IGF or IGC. > > Thanking you and Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Deirdre Williams > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>; Imran Ahmed Shah > > *Sent:* Monday, 11 November 2013, 19:00 > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator > [2014-2016] > > Dear IGC members, > I would like to nominate Imran Ahmed Shah for the position as > Co-cordinator. I feel very honoured that Ginger should have nominated me, > and I am very grateful to all those who have given me their support, but I > also feel that it is important to the IGC's survival that there should be a > choice of nominees, and I know that Imran has had nominations on previous > occasions. I also feel that he may be able to bring a different perspective > to the work that the co-coordinators need to do. I have asked Imran and he > told me that he would accept nomination. > I hope that before nominations close on 1st December there will be other > candidates as well who would be willing to give their time > Best wishes > Deirdre. > > > On 10 November 2013 08:23, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > Further to the *June 6, 2013* notice for calls for coordinator, we are > happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on December > 1, 2013. > > For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, > there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of > candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was why > we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about candidates. > This year, we started making early calls to start thinking about nominating > someone or standing for the elections for the 2014-2016 term. > > We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating > yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please liaise > with them and nominate them on the list. > > *The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 *to allow for elections. > having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I thought I > should add some reflections that may help those who are thinking of > standing or to encourage people to stand. > > *Reflections * > The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the facilitation > of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and encouraging > members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the Charter and > providing a platform for advocacy. The role and responsibilities will be an > opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes antagonistic views. It requires > strength, courage and emotional intelligence to manage the > responsibilities. For me personally, it has been an incredible opportunity > learning about dealing with diverse voices and I can say that I have learnt > the discipline of restraint where at times I have had to hold back my view > because facilitators have to have some form of neutrality and act in the > best interests of the IGC community. > > Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the > assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs to be > clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the majority before > deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time for Internet > Governance. > > The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC > community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally with > the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. > > *Current Nominations Received* > > 1. Deirdre Williams > 2. x > 3. x > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear All, > > Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in > standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to > nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So > that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to > choose from. > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > “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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 23:59:22 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:59:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: great picture from Brazil for blog posts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42A8E15A-BB86-457B-BFED-172EBAFAD1D2@gmail.com> I am finishing the translation - working on it since last week - and will send to this group this week Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:37 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > Hi Carolina, > > Do you have a link to the current version of Marco Civil? Can try google translate to read. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > >> On Nov 13, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >> You can use both #MarcoCivil and #MarcoCivilJa >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> https://twitter.com/search?q=%23MarcoCivil&src=hash >> >> it would be great if your organizations could help with the "noise" we are trying to make in Twitter on Marco Civil - which was to be voted today, but... >> >> C >> >> -- >> Carolina Rossini >> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >> Open Technology Institute >> New America Foundation >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Carolina Rossini >> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >> Open Technology Institute >> New America Foundation >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Wed Nov 13 00:19:26 2013 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 06:19:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: great picture from Brazil for blog posts In-Reply-To: <42A8E15A-BB86-457B-BFED-172EBAFAD1D2@gmail.com> References: <42A8E15A-BB86-457B-BFED-172EBAFAD1D2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Carolina, We are always together and stay together as God lends us life. You can count on us. *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2013/11/13 Carolina > I am finishing the translation - working on it since last week - and will > send to this group this week > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:37 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > Hi Carolina, > > > > Do you have a link to the current version of Marco Civil? Can try > google translate to read. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > >> On Nov 13, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >> > >> You can use both #MarcoCivil and #MarcoCivilJa > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> https://twitter.com/search?q=%23MarcoCivil&src=hash > >> > >> it would be great if your organizations could help with the "noise" we > are trying to make in Twitter on Marco Civil - which was to be voted today, > but... > >> > >> C > >> > >> -- > >> Carolina Rossini > >> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > >> Open Technology Institute > >> New America Foundation > >> // > >> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >> + 1 6176979389 > >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >> skype: carolrossini > >> @carolinarossini > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Carolina Rossini > >> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > >> Open Technology Institute > >> New America Foundation > >> // > >> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >> + 1 6176979389 > >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >> skype: carolrossini > >> @carolinarossini > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 00:23:26 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:23:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: great picture from Brazil for blog posts In-Reply-To: <42A8E15A-BB86-457B-BFED-172EBAFAD1D2@gmail.com> References: <42A8E15A-BB86-457B-BFED-172EBAFAD1D2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <935E1943-A252-4CAC-B099-D1ADE739C72C@glocom.ac.jp> Brilliant, thank you! Adam On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Carolina wrote: > I am finishing the translation - working on it since last week - and will send to this group this week > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:37 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Hi Carolina, >> >> Do you have a link to the current version of Marco Civil? Can try google translate to read. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> >>> You can use both #MarcoCivil and #MarcoCivilJa >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> https://twitter.com/search?q=%23MarcoCivil&src=hash >>> >>> it would be great if your organizations could help with the "noise" we are trying to make in Twitter on Marco Civil - which was to be voted today, but... >>> >>> C >>> >>> -- >>> Carolina Rossini >>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>> Open Technology Institute >>> New America Foundation >>> // >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Carolina Rossini >>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>> Open Technology Institute >>> New America Foundation >>> // >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Wed Nov 13 02:41:13 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:41:13 -0800 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 2 Days to Go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings Salanieta, I volunteer for the NomCom. Warm regards Mwendwa Kivuva ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh On 12 November 2013 14:24, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear All, > > As you know there are only two days to do before we close the call for > the NomCom that will appoint the MAG nominees submitted by the IGC. > > Here is the recent update: > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. > > Adam Peake > 2. > > Ian Peter > 3. > > Kossi Amessinou > 4. > > Angela Daly > 5. > > Jeremy Hunsinger > 6. > > Kerry Brown > 7. > > Chaitanya Dhareshwar > 8. > > Erick Iriarte Ahon > 9. > > Ginger Paque > 10. > > Jose F Callo Romero > 11. > > Suresh Ramasubramanium > 12. > > Badouin Schombe > 13. > > Robin Gross > 14. > > Tapani Tarvainen > 15. > > David Cake > 16. > > Jeremy Malcolm > 17. > > Chun Eung Hwi > 18. > > Antonio Medina Gomez > 19. > > Shaila Rao Mistry > 20. > > Deirdre Williams > 21. > > Devon Blake > 22. > > José Félix Arias Ynche > > > > [We need 3 more to volunteer for the NomCom] > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > 1. > > Asif Kabani > 2. > > Rudi Vansnick > 3. > > Sonigitu Ekpe > 4. > > Imran Ahmed Shah > 5. > > Fouad Bajwa > 6. > > Katim S Touray > > > Note: Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification as to > what specifically he is volunteering for NomCom or MAG > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 02:47:41 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:47:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Licences for Europe_WG2_TaC International_ victim of aggressive communication prepared by the EDRI In-Reply-To: <559a0c56969022cf9e19e17275e3d6b0114bbff8@ssl0.ovh.net> References: <559a0c56969022cf9e19e17275e3d6b0114bbff8@ssl0.ovh.net> Message-ID: <20131113084741.30939112@quill> For a bit of context, this complaint seems to be about http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.19/commission-generated-users-l4e Greetings, Norbert Yuliya Morenets wrote: > > Dear all, > > As you might know, our organization, member of the Working > Group 2, Licences for Europe, TaC International has become a victim > of the aggressive communication prepared by the EDRI representative, > disseminated in the format of a newsletter on the 9th of October 2013. > It contains statements of defamatory nature, which target the > organisation and its representative, Ms Yuliya Morenets, at a personal > level.  > > As you know, all communications made by TaC during its > engagement in the Licences for Europe Working Group 2 are publicly > available at the European Commission website dedicated to the working > Group (http://ec.europa.eu/licences-for-europe-dialogue/en).  > > TaC believes in cooperation and dialogue, therefore the > author of the EDRI communication has been asked to remove the > mentioned defamatory content and is informed about the legal > consequences of disseminating information of aggressive and > defamatory nature. > > Please find attached the open statement prepared by TaC > President, which is publicly communicated in different communities.  > > I look forward to working together, > > With best regards, > > Yuliya Morenets > > TaC-Together against Cybercrime International > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 03:00:51 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 02:00:51 -0600 Subject: [governance] Licences for Europe_WG2_TaC International_ victim of aggressive communication prepared by the EDRI In-Reply-To: <20131113084741.30939112@quill> References: <559a0c56969022cf9e19e17275e3d6b0114bbff8@ssl0.ovh.net> <20131113084741.30939112@quill> Message-ID: <20131113080051.GA17041@hserus.net> Norbert Bollow [13/11/13 08:47 +0100]: >For a bit of context, this complaint seems to be about > >http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.19/commission-generated-users-l4e Without much more context, I for one am disinclined to weigh in on this he said she said situation. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 03:11:57 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:41:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Workshop on "Social Justice in an Internet Mediated World" co-organised by ITfC and Manipal Centre for Philosophy and Humanities Message-ID: <5283344D.7040605@itforchange.net> For those in India, or even outside who can afford the costs.... pl see the below notice. (Apologies for cross postings) Dear All In partnership with Manipal Centre for Philosophy & Humanities, University of Manipal, IT for Change is conducting a Workshop on "Social Justice in an Internet-mediated World" between January 31-February 2, 2014. The workshop flyer is enclosed below, and more details can be accessed on our website www.itforchange.net. A limited number of scholarships covering course fee and travel fare is also available, Accommodation is being provided on campus, free of cost, for all participants. Kindly pass on this information to colleagues, friends or anyone you may see fit. Best, parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 328544 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 anriette at apc.org Wed Nov 13 03:45:11 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:45:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <527F6A03.3030102@cafonso.ca> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> <527F6A03.3030102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52833C17.70002@apc.org> Agree with you on this c.a. And suggest that our NomComs take this on as part of their work. On 10/11/2013 13:12, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I do not see we need to complicate this too much. It is actually simple: > we are all (I assume) part of or linked to civil society orgs. I think > all of these have Web portals. Anyone who needs to check on these issues > regarding any of the participants in these cauci would just visit the > corresponding institutional portal. > > But no one is obliged to disclose certain infos -- one reason is of > course the safety regarding a possibly adverse political environment > where the organization legally resides. However, when we select > coordinators for example, it would (again, my opinion) be relevant as > part of the selection criteria to know about funding relationships. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at isoc-mu.org Wed Nov 13 03:54:20 2013 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:54:20 +0400 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 2 Days to Go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <010801cee04d$f26e46a0$d74ad3e0$@isoc-mu.org> Dear Salanieta You can count on me as well for the NomCom Best regards Dave Kissoondoyal From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: 13 November 2013 02:24 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 2 Days to Go Dear All, As you know there are only two days to do before we close the call for the NomCom that will appoint the MAG nominees submitted by the IGC. Here is the recent update: Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] 1. Adam Peake 2. Ian Peter 3. Kossi Amessinou 4. Angela Daly 5. Jeremy Hunsinger 6. Kerry Brown 7. Chaitanya Dhareshwar 8. Erick Iriarte Ahon 9. Ginger Paque 10. Jose F Callo Romero 11. Suresh Ramasubramanium 12. Badouin Schombe 13. Robin Gross 14. Tapani Tarvainen 15. David Cake 16. Jeremy Malcolm 17. Chun Eung Hwi 18. Antonio Medina Gomez 19. Shaila Rao Mistry 20. Deirdre Williams 21. Devon Blake 22. José Félix Arias Ynche [We need 3 more to volunteer for the NomCom] Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. 1. Asif Kabani 2. Rudi Vansnick 3. Sonigitu Ekpe 4. Imran Ahmed Shah 5. Fouad Bajwa 6. Katim S Touray Note: Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification as to what specifically he is volunteering for NomCom or MAG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 04:45:44 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:45:44 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 2 Days to Go Message-ID: Dear All, *MAG NomCom Call for Volunteers - Closed* We have more than enough volunteers to initiate the process for selecting the NomCom. Whilst we still have two days to go we will now stop the call for volunteers for NomCom. Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] 1. Adam Peake 2. Ian Peter 3. Kossi Amessinou 4. Angela Daly 5. Jeremy Hunsinger 6. Kerry Brown 7. Chaitanya Dhareshwar 8. Erick Iriarte Ahon 9. Ginger Paque 10. Jose F Callo Romero 11. Suresh Ramasubramanium 12. Badouin Schombe 13. Robin Gross 14. Tapani Tarvainen 15. David Cake 16. Jeremy Malcolm 17. Chun Eung Hwi 18. Antonio Medina Gomez 19. Shaila Rao Mistry 20. Deirdre Williams 21. Devon Blake 22. José Félix Arias Ynche 23. Michael Gurstein 24. JFC Morfin 25. Mwendwa Kivuva 26. Dave Kissoondoyal *MAG Nominees* Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. This will close on the 15th November, 2013 to allow the NomCom to proceed with their processes. 1. Asif Kabani 2. Rudi Vansnick 3. Sonigitu Ekpe 4. Imran Ahmed Shah 5. Fouad Bajwa 6. Katim S Touray Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification as to what specifically they are volunteering for NomCom or MAG. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 04:48:20 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:18:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Sacrificing the ICANN Will Not Be Enough for the US to Restore Its Internet Ethics Message-ID: <52834AE4.2010004@itforchange.net> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/sacrificing-the-icann-wil_b_4259217.html Sacrificing the ICANN Will Not Be Enough for the US to Restore Its Internet Ethics Jean-Christophe Nothias We were only a few among media to realize, back in 2012, how arrogant and powerful was the US over its dominance of the Internet, and not just its control over the root servers and the domain name management. Policy making was at stake! Since December 2012, we know it as the US 120-member delegation to the World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) left the room where over 190 nation states were convene to discuss terms of progress over agreement in international telecommunication connectivity. Its major reason was: "We do not want to see the word 'Internet' appearing in an updated telecommunication intergovernmental treaty. If the US accepts this, freedom of expression over Internet will be at stake." Everyone remembers how a large UN bashing campaign was orchestrated hand in hand by US officials (State Department, Department of Trade, Congress....) and the US Internet robber barons of our time, under the leadership of Google and the support of the subsidized heroic 'Internet Freedom Fighters', a naming closer to a talibanesque approach than of a human rights defender's view. Today, after Snowden brought evidence to the world, citizens have learnt their lesson: we are all terrorist, not to forget the German Chancellor, the Brazilian President, you and me as well. Who can now trust the US on respecting simple rules over neutrality, privacy, and honesty? Is this part of the 9/11 legacy and the Bush administration ethics? Indeed, had all nation states signed an international telecommunication treaty, the US Democracy would have either ruined its own diplomatic signature or stopped its global spying. So far no international treaty is protecting global citizens from such abuse, maybe a reason to understand why Edward Snowden decided to spoke truth to power. The citizens of the United States have had a few or no reaction, hesitating between a "I have nothing to hide" and a "I don't care if they look into my data; anyway I like to exhibit myself in social networks." Maybe they underestimate the price to pay for their authorities' choice and conduct. The reality to be considered has an obvious economic origin and bias, on behalf on which the US is using its 'digital sovereignty' over foreign players. This 'sovereignty' is expected to help grab precious points of future growth and tens of thousands of jobs over the next decades. Already the mighty power of the Internet is putting the industry big players in a state of permanent stress as they battle to hide their profits worldwide starting with the UK, France, Germany, and all relevant markets. The gold Internet pipeline is bringing indecent power to companies like Google, Verizon, Apple... showing a poor CSR ranking, thanks to their ability to avoid paying due tax around the world. Public US authorities have also their own trade or debt challenges ahead. All of them whether private or public, bet that Internet will bring what they need most: profit and tax. If the US has organized its own market under the patronage of a few monopolies so precisely described by Susan Crawford in her Captive Audience book, many of the international telecom competitors are very unpleased with the same arrogant dominancy outside the US. Add global spying and abuse of power and you have the perfect Molotov cocktail for an international uproar. This is not to mention the gift made to all dictators around the world now celebrating the last US digital tread, a global affront, a present that nourishes the villainies the US soldiers are supposedly fighting at a heavy cost around the world. Democracy is the 'blond' in dictators' favorite jokes. All of this comes with a heavy price to all democrats. Any principle that a country pushes to the no-value zone is a very expensive asset to conquer back. Indeed, Internet is now part of our common geography and politics, and a mirror to any ethical failure. Even though I am not a fervent Marxist, I would define Internet governance more as the superstructure where, beyond national policies, are established internationally, public policy, connectivity agreements, competition fairness, and digital ethics (first pack goes first...), by opposition to the base where corporations and technicians enjoy setting things by force of common technological and commercial sense. Both of them are not so concerned about public good. Their game is to enjoy the most effective code to maximize profits. The fact is that in order to be left alone 'ruling' the code, and the digital space revenue, they are keen to explain that Internet is a pure decentralized world that hates nothing more than to be governed. Jungle and Far-West are always more fun for the ones with the guns. "How to govern such a decentralized wildness?" ask the defenders of the status quo. In this world of 'Digital Freedom Fighters' of all kind, the 'enemy' is governance and regulation. "Regulation kills innovation." According to these bright minds - some of them paid by the Internet robber barons to protect and enlarge their baronies - Internet could not be governed except by the successful corporations. Today, foreign countries realize that the US needs to be grounded. The big lie about the ungovernable digital space has come to an end, as national laws prevail and are about to conflict each other, as more investment is required for higher speed and connectivity, as digital inequalities between regions and continents are stretching - Google's pocket money put into balloons won't fill the Internet holes in Africa, when the fortune it is putting in fiber will reinforce Google's power over the US market, or emerging countries where Google, Facebook and other grab public digital space for little efforts. As any other common good, Internet public regulation is needed all over the world. International law is not the enemy. Vested interests are the enemy of the Netizens. This is getting clearer to many minds, including the ones who de facto control the digital world and its industry. The White House and the US Internet Barons have now two major issues: how to calm down their very upset partners and/or competitors, and how to avoid a major digital spring that would ruin the current status-quo over their domination within the Internet governance - supposedly for our own good. A first idea came regarding the economic issue and it went quite un-noticed after the last September G-20 meeting in Saint Petersburg. Published as the /Tax/ /Annex/ /to the Saint Petersburg G20 Leaders Declaration/, this document claims that: "International tax rules, which date back to the 1920's, have not kept pace with the changing business environment, including the growing importance of intangibles and the digital economy. (...)... Issues to be examined include, but are not limited to, the ability of a company to have a significant digital presence in the economy of another country without being liable to taxation due to the lack of nexus under current international rules, the attribution of value created from the generation of marketable location-relevant data through the use of digital products and services, the characterization of income derived from new business models, the application of related source rules, and how to ensure the effective collection of VAT/GST with respect to the cross-border supply of digital goods and services." Or to put it simply, when a Turkish or Mexican netizen links to a Google ad, then the data related to that ad revenue will be taxed by the national fiscal authorities. Same idea would therefore applied in all G20 countries, as all of them signed for this to be implemented, including the US. This is quite a change, and indeed, France has been pushing hard on this idea, following the report published in January 2013 by Pierre Colin and Nicolas Collin for both the /Ministère de l'Economie et des Finances/ and the /Ministère du redressement productif/ headed by the vocal Arnaud Montebourg. Weeks ago, French digital economy minister, Fleur Pellerin argued in an interview given to the FT that: "The time has come to be more proactive on the European level, not to regulate the Internet but to regulate some platforms that have gained dominant positions and now use those dominant positions to make it impossible for smaller actors to develop and to challenge their positions. That's a problem." Ms Pellerin has been pushing the issue on the European agenda since then, with some success and aims at linking the tax base to the place where the profits are made, and proposing a revised EU value added tax by spring 2014. For the White House and the State department, it sounds like a minor blow, as the project targets mainly US corporations, and wealthy ones. Some new tax revenues might soften political wills around the digital planet. Dries Lesage, professor of globalization and global governance, at Ghent Institute for International Studies, at Ghent University brings a clear understanding of what is at stake in a paper published in the Saint Petersburg G20 preparatory documentation: "The transnational observation should give way to an entirely new regime, one that is based on unitary taxation. This means that multinationals' global profits are allocated and taxed per country, according to a formula that looks into real economic activity. The current regime, in contrast, allows multinational groups to engage in artificial cross-border transactions among their own subsidiaries, in order to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions and tax havens." Regarding the Internet governance itself, a US idea has emerged in order to create a double-win situation. "/Let's give away the ICANN to the rest of the world/." From DC to London, Paris, Geneva, Istanbul, Rio, Bali, the idea is getting more popular according to sources at the IGF and other stakeholders who declined to be identified at this stage. What's the plan? The ICANN would become an international body, away from US control. Officially. Of course, it is hard to imagine that this would affect the 13 global Internet 'root-servers' run by entities based in the US (Verisign, USC-ISI, Cogent, Maryland University, Nasa, Internet Systems Consortium, Defense Information Systems Agency, United States Army, ICANN), one in the UK (RIPE NCC), one in Japan (WIDE Project), and one in Sweden (Autonomica). For the plan to work to 'sacrifice' the ICANN and impose a multi-stakeholder neoliberal model, the US needs to give the ICANN an international shine, still not a UN one. There enters an unexpected player: the Swiss who have been suffering much of the US tax blame, and lost their banking secrecy under its twist, have now a possibility to calm the fiscal US storm by giving to a future ICANN a nest, which would be "neutral" and "international". It would look UN-style without being UN. It would also reinforce the multi-stakeholder shine of the criticized ICANN. A clear definition of what means the later model is still unclear, and this vagueness might be its most enjoyable advantage. Such an institutional animal would have much room for improvisation and special arrangements - as ICANN did for 15 years so far. There is a danger that corporations' voice would equal if not overpass all governmental voices. Civil society would also participate but as their funding often comes from Corporations, they might not be so independent. Of course, the Brazilians whose president has turned this into a personal matter would have an easy reward to collect, as they could claim they have obtained a major change in Internet Governance. Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff has announced during her NY speech at the UN that her country will submit a resolution in order to change the course of the Internet governance before December 16, 2013, when the UN General assembly will take a break for 13 weeks. As the US would certainly appreciate this resolution never to surface, the president of ICANN, Fadi Chéhade visited Brazil on October 7. Chéhade met Brazilian Communication minister, Paulo Bernardo, and they agreed that Brazil would host a meeting in April 2014 in Rio de Janeiro. "I understand that the Internet, as a new feature, requires active participation by governments, their respective agencies within the United Nations, but also users, civil society, and technicians, who after all make the Internet work" Chehadé defended, adding that corporations and academics should also participate to the debate. "We must not allow economic, political and religious interests to interfere in the free circulation of ideas" Bernardo commented. This is why these days, there is growing excitement in order to announce that the ICANN might move away from a Californian non profit to a more international, multi-stakeholder model, still keeping the governments and ITU at bay in a renewed Governmental Advisory Committee already existing in the current ICANN. Last week, during a UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (on Internet related public issues), an AT&T employee and representative of an Indian business chamber said: "Business believes that stakeholders at the future table need to be on a equal footing to make decisions related to Internet policy." According to one participant to the meeting, a lot of the present working group members from private sector and civil society supported this view enthusiastically. Ultimately, such a idea would lead corporations and governments to establish together the future of Internet policy making. On December 6, in Bern, a forum will gather a group of Swiss authorities and US stakeholders such as Internet Society and ICANN representatives. They will talk about the "Institutionalization of Global Internet Governance, Multistakeholderism, Multilateralism and Beyond". Frédéric Riehl, vice-director of the Swiss Federal Office of Communications will explain the new positioning of Switzerland in the Internet Governance landscape. The participants will also assess the multilateral model such as the ones from ITU, WTO and WIPO, during a debate moderated by Tarek Kamel, senior advisor to the ICANN President for governmental engagement. Probably the best person to do so if one considers the objective of the meeting. Everything seems to go in the right direction for the new ICANN that might join soon the Internet Society, already headquartered in Geneva. Giving away the ICANN might please a few; the Swiss, the Brazilians, and the usual faithful digital US allies such as the Swedish and British, but what's about the Germans, the French and other Europeans, not to mention the Africans and Asians. As the single market for Telecom in Europe is at stake these days, the Europeans might have a serious talk. By the way, what are the media telling us on this huge battle and challenge? They might buy the 'internationalization' of the ICANN as a good step forward (!?). Many among foreign governments might not go for it. The first Internet political war is going to last until we get a fair and open debate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 05:05:40 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:05:40 +1300 Subject: [governance] Notice of Travel Message-ID: Dear All, I will be travelling to Buenos Aires for the ICANN 48 meeting and will check my emails intermittently as I travel especially as this is during the time of the NomCom selections etc. Norbert will run the RFC process for selection etc. I will be checking my emails intermittently. Kind Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 05:36:36 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:36:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Sacrificing the ICANN Will Not Be Enough for the US to Restore Its Internet Ethics In-Reply-To: <52834AE4.2010004@itforchange.net> References: <52834AE4.2010004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi On Nov 13, 2013, at 10:48 AM, parminder wrote: > On December 6, in Bern, a forum will gather a group of Swiss authorities and US stakeholders such as Internet Society and ICANN representatives. They will talk about the "Institutionalization of Global Internet Governance, Multistakeholderism, Multilateralism and Beyond". Frédéric Riehl, vice-director of the Swiss Federal Office of Communications will explain the new positioning of Switzerland in the Internet Governance landscape. The participants will also assess the multilateral model such as the ones from ITU, WTO and WIPO, during a debate moderated by Tarek Kamel, senior advisor to the ICANN President for governmental engagement. Probably the best person to do so if one considers the objective of the meeting. Everything seems to go in the right direction for the new ICANN that might join soon the Internet Society, already headquartered in Geneva. Without commenting on the rest of this tiresome tirade, as the co-organizer of the above mentioned conference I’d like to correct and update its characterization. It is not "a debate” involving Swiss authorities and US stakeholders (bit of a slight to ISOC and ICANN participants from around the world, but whatever), and the "objectives of the meeting” are neither nefarious nor programmatic. It is an academic research conference, sponsored by the Swiss Network of International Studies (SNIS) and hosted by the World Trade Institute of the University of Bern. The speakers (many of them IGC members) will be presenting draft memos that will subsequently grow into chapters for an edited book we'll publish late next year. 4 of the 5 panel moderators will be non-academics in order to help us broaden the discussion and take on board current issues of interest to practitioners in the field. One of these moderators will be Theresa Swinehart, Senior Advisor to the President on Strategy , ICANN, who is replacing Tarek. Anyone who has the interest and ability to be in Bern on 6-7 December is welcome to attend; registration is via the website, http://www.snis.ch/node/8146. Unfortunately, SNIS does not do remote participation. Best, 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 (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 13 05:46:28 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:16:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Sacrificing the ICANN Will Not Be Enough for the US to Restore Its Internet Ethics In-Reply-To: References: <52834AE4.2010004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1330F1A8-17A0-48E3-AE9B-AE3C64E3FB29@hserus.net> It did sound even more incoherent than usual, I must admit. Was there an actual point there, or was it just the poorly informed, general and rambling diatribe that it appeared to be on a quick surface read? --srs (iPad) > On 13-Nov-2013, at 16:06, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > >> On Nov 13, 2013, at 10:48 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> On December 6, in Bern, a forum will gather a group of Swiss authorities and US stakeholders such as Internet Society and ICANN representatives. They will talk about the "Institutionalization of Global Internet Governance, Multistakeholderism, Multilateralism and Beyond". Frédéric Riehl, vice-director of the Swiss Federal Office of Communications will explain the new positioning of Switzerland in the Internet Governance landscape. The participants will also assess the multilateral model such as the ones from ITU, WTO and WIPO, during a debate moderated by Tarek Kamel, senior advisor to the ICANN President for governmental engagement. Probably the best person to do so if one considers the objective of the meeting. Everything seems to go in the right direction for the new ICANN that might join soon the Internet Society, already headquartered in Geneva. > > Without commenting on the rest of this tiresome tirade, as the co-organizer of the above mentioned conference I’d like to correct and update its characterization. It is not "a debate” involving Swiss authorities and US stakeholders (bit of a slight to ISOC and ICANN participants from around the world, but whatever), and the "objectives of the meeting” are neither nefarious nor programmatic. It is an academic research conference, sponsored by the Swiss Network of International Studies (SNIS) and hosted by the World Trade Institute of the University of Bern. The speakers (many of them IGC members) will be presenting draft memos that will subsequently grow into chapters for an edited book we'll publish late next year. 4 of the 5 panel moderators will be non-academics in order to help us broaden the discussion and take on board current issues of interest to practitioners in the field. One of these moderators will be Theresa Swinehart, Senior Advisor to the President on Strategy , ICANN, who is replacing Tarek. > > Anyone who has the interest and ability to be in Bern on 6-7 December is welcome to attend; registration is via the website, http://www.snis.ch/node/8146. Unfortunately, SNIS does not do remote participation. > > Best, > > 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 (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 08:58:53 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:58:53 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC In-Reply-To: <5282AE07.5000308@apc.org> References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> <5282AE07.5000308@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks Joy. Disappointing to see Parminder partnering with Iran and Saudi Arabia (what a trio...) "called for an holistic approach to internet governance as a means to fully implement enhanced cooperation, and for this to be materialised in a new centralised global inter-governmental mechanism". Parminder, I hope when you present these ill conceived notions you inform the WG that they are very much your own positions and not widely supported by civil society. They get no support when you mention on the IGC or bestbits lists. The live transcription was had to follow --in all uppercase letters rolling down the screen-- but it seems you tried to limit participation in the Correspondence Group mentioned in the summary Joy provided (to provide "analysis of issues/existing mechanisms/on-going activities") while the rest of civil society and others successfully kept it open to all. Is that right, you argued for a closed group? On our mailing lists you are full of talk if transparency and openness and then when in more closed surroundings you are actually a man of government and control. Not good. Adam On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:39 AM, joy wrote: > Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general > note on the summary of the meeting: http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/ > > regards > > Joy Liddicoat > > On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Dear people, >> >> Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the >> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting >> just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest >> edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in >> Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. >> >> In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the >> advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this >> phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always >> taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to >> suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet. >> >> Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in >> PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed >> -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has >> not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such, >> and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet >> requires periodic revisions. >> >> The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF >> should follow, as described in its paragraph 72: >> >> ------ >> 72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, >> to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum >> for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance >> Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to: >> >> a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet >> governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, >> stability and development of the Internet. >> >> b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different >> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and >> discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body. >> >> c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other >> institutions on matters under their purview. >> >> d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in >> this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific >> and technical communities. >> >> e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the >> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world. >> >> f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing >> and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from >> developing countries. >> >> g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant >> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations. >> >> h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing >> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. >> >> i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS >> principles in Internet governance processes. >> >> j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources. >> >> k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse >> of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users. >> >> l) Publish its proceedings. >> ------ >> >> It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF. >> First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented >> forum, not merely a sequence of events. >> >> Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be >> generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which >> have been basically ignored by the UN. >> >> The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its >> mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda >> have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which >> is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically >> on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the >> expertises needed to carry out this challenge . >> >> It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or >> might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it >> might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process. >> >> As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced >> cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development >> (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN >> General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has >> revealed some worrying weaknesses . >> >> The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the >> production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There >> were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil >> society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the >> business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing >> countries. >> >> It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including >> the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the >> APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of >> the various views of the working group in relation to themes of >> cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is >> attached in PDF] >> >> The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal >> the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis >> Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet >> Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively, >> significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics >> possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group >> difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to >> group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group >> ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The >> perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG >> and the WSIS process is inevitable . >> >> One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants >> are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not >> necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar >> to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both >> the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report. >> >> Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this >> process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate >> below. >> >> A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an >> interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and >> possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for >> easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of >> the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and >> consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their >> suggestions: >> >> ------ >> Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and >> Observers >> >> 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a >> reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living >> document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and >> responsibilities of all participants; >> >> 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined >> by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles >> were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva >> Declaration of Principles; >> >> 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it >> and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance; >> >> 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended >> in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75; >> >> 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for >> Enhanced Cooperation; >> >> 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms spring into existence organically >> as they are needed and that there is no need to create new mechanisms >> in a top down manner; >> >> 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand >> internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking >> into account, its multi-stakeholder nature; >> >> 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda >> defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation; >> >> 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that >> are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion >> Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the >> larger IGF community; >> >> 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the recommendations of the CSTD WG on >> IGF Improvements including its mandate to give advice to the functional >> Internet governance and management organizations; >> >> 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the >> IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters >> within their mandates; >> >> 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF >> process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other >> stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal >> footing; >> >> 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to >> participate in the IGF. >> >> 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all >> stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and >> to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced. >> ------ >> >> In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but >> essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced >> cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around >> these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative >> processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the >> generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance. >> >> On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the >> governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden: >> >> ------ >> - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of >> all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet >> governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative >> working methods such as remote participation. >> >> - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate >> through capactity building, including but not limited to, training >> programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing. >> >> - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and >> consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates >> affordable access for all stakeholders. >> >> - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to >> empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework >> that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights >> online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support >> mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships. >> ------ >> >> At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can >> help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 09:20:45 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:20:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> <5282AE07.5000308@apc.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013321E6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi here is my article on the WGEC meeting. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131112_enhanced_cooperation_in_internet_governance_mystery_to_clarity/ wolfgang -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org on behalf of Carolina Rossini Sent: Wed 11/13/2013 1:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Cc: joy; Carlos A. Afonso; BestBits List Subject: Re: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC hi all I think we need a better way to list working topics and moving work based on who wants to help with what should best bits have a wiki for work by working groups formed spontaneously based on what people want to work together on? i feel a lot get lost in the list and people get distracted over procedural issues and some times too many contributions - which are good - but some times have the effect of burying the working proposals within the Wikimedia groups, this "task forces" work well... one examples among many from that community is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council of course the goal is different, but much is how we fix our knowledge and develop work together in a transparent platform, that also allows debate and a picture of the history of it) What Carlos proposes demands a lot of work and focus, and since it is hard to set calls, we need to find ways to work asynchronously This idea would also work for the working-groups formed at the Best Bits mtg just a thought ...since this list is a high-traffic list and we could rethink what needs a working space for work and follow-ups and what actually needs to circulate/be discussed in the list On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Joy for sharing your summary with us. This is very useful. I > would invite all IGC subscribers to read Carlos, Joy and Avri's posts of > the WGEC as it is very useful. > > The #WGEC on Twitter that was used during the meeting will also show the > trail of discussions and thoughts. Joy I am wondering about the possibility > of a Webinar where those of you who attended the WGEC can form a Panel > either through a Webinar or a Google Hangout where you can talk about the > recent WGEC meeting and take questions from us. > > If someone from the IGC would like to volunteer to look into this, it > would be useful. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:39 AM, joy wrote: > >> Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general >> note on the summary of the meeting: http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/ >> >> regards >> >> Joy Liddicoat >> >> On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> > Dear people, >> > >> > Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the >> > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting >> > just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest >> > edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in >> > Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. >> > >> > In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the >> > advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this >> > phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always >> > taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to >> > suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet. >> > >> > Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in >> > PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed >> > -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has >> > not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such, >> > and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet >> > requires periodic revisions. >> > >> > The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF >> > should follow, as described in its paragraph 72: >> > >> > ------ >> > 72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, >> > to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum >> > for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue-called the Internet Governance >> > Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to: >> > >> > a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet >> > governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, >> > stability and development of the Internet. >> > >> > b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different >> > cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and >> > discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body. >> > >> > c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other >> > institutions on matters under their purview. >> > >> > d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in >> > this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific >> > and technical communities. >> > >> > e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the >> > availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world. >> > >> > f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing >> > and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from >> > developing countries. >> > >> > g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant >> > bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make >> recommendations. >> > >> > h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing >> > countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. >> > >> > i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS >> > principles in Internet governance processes. >> > >> > j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources. >> > >> > k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse >> > of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users. >> > >> > l) Publish its proceedings. >> > ------ >> > >> > It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF. >> > First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented >> > forum, not merely a sequence of events. >> > >> > Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be >> > generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which >> > have been basically ignored by the UN. >> > >> > The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its >> > mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda >> > have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which >> > is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically >> > on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the >> > expertises needed to carry out this challenge . >> > >> > It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or >> > might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it >> > might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process. >> > >> > As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced >> > cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development >> > (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN >> > General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has >> > revealed some worrying weaknesses . >> > >> > The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the >> > production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There >> > were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil >> > society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the >> > business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing >> > countries. >> > >> > It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including >> > the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the >> > APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of >> > the various views of the working group in relation to themes of >> > cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is >> > attached in PDF] >> > >> > The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal >> > the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis >> > Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet >> > Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively, >> > significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics >> > possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group >> > difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to >> > group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group >> > ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The >> > perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG >> > and the WSIS process is inevitable . >> > >> > One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants >> > are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not >> > necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar >> > to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both >> > the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report. >> > >> > Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this >> > process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate >> > below. >> > >> > A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an >> > interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and >> > possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for >> > easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of >> > the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and >> > consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their >> > suggestions: >> > >> > ------ >> > Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and >> > Observers >> > >> > 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a >> > reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living >> > document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and >> > responsibilities of all participants; >> > >> > 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined >> > by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles >> > were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva >> > Declaration of Principles; >> > >> > 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it >> > and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance; >> > >> > 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended >> > in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75; >> > >> > 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for >> > Enhanced Cooperation; >> > >> > 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms spring into existence organically >> > as they are needed and that there is no need to create new mechanisms >> > in a top down manner; >> > >> > 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand >> > internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking >> > into account, its multi-stakeholder nature; >> > >> > 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda >> > defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation; >> > >> > 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that >> > are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion >> > Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the >> > larger IGF community; >> > >> > 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the recommendations of the CSTD WG on >> > IGF Improvements including its mandate to give advice to the functional >> > Internet governance and management organizations; >> > >> > 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the >> > IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters >> > within their mandates; >> > >> > 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF >> > process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other >> > stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal >> > footing; >> > >> > 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to >> > participate in the IGF. >> > >> > 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all >> > stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and >> > to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced. >> > ------ >> > >> > In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but >> > essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced >> > cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around >> > these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative >> > processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the >> > generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance. >> > >> > On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the >> > governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden: >> > >> > ------ >> > - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of >> > all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet >> > governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative >> > working methods such as remote participation. >> > >> > - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate >> > through capactity building, including but not limited to, training >> > programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing. >> > >> > - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and >> > consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates >> > affordable access for all stakeholders. >> > >> > - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to >> > empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework >> > that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights >> > online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support >> > mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships. >> > ------ >> > >> > At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can >> > help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC. >> > >> > fraternal regards >> > >> > --c.a. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 12:58:03 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:58:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] Breaking: WikiLeaks docs show Obama rollbacks on health, Internet freedom -- Complete IP Chapter Leaked In-Reply-To: <7A38D634983D414EBCD5D940CACABC8D03BD97283F@MBX17.exg5.exghost.com> References: <7A38D634983D414EBCD5D940CACABC8D03BD97283F@MBX17.exg5.exghost.com> Message-ID: <063601cee099$e77ed470$b67c7d50$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Peter Maybarduk Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:07 AM To: a2k at lists.keionline.org Subject: [A2k] Breaking: WikiLeaks docs show Obama rollbacks on health, Internet freedom -- Complete IP Chapter Leaked Leaked Documents Reveal Obama Administration Push for Internet Freedom Limits, Terms That Raise Drug Prices in Closed-Door Trade Talks U.S. Demands in Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Text, Published Today by WikiLeaks, Contradict Obama Policy and Public Opinion at Home and Abroad Nov. 13, 2013 Contact: Peter Maybarduk (202) 588-7755 pmaybarduk at citizen.org WASHINGTON, D.C. - Secret documents published today by WikiLeaks and analyzed by Public Citizen reveal that the Obama administration is demanding terms that would limit Internet freedom and access to lifesaving medicines throughout the Asia-Pacific region and bind Americans to the same bad rules, belying the administration's stated commitments to reduce health care costs and advance free expression online, Public Citizen said today. WikiLeaks published the complete draft of the Intellectual Property chapter for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed international commercial pact between the United States and 11 Asian and Latin American countries. Although talks started in 2008, this is the first access the public and press have had to this text. The text identifies which countries support which terms. The administration has refused to make draft TPP text public, despite announcing intentions to sign the deal by year's end. Signatory nations' laws would be required to conform to TPP terms. The leak shows the United States seeking to impose the most extreme demands of Big Pharma and Hollywood, Public Citizen said, despite the express and frequently universal opposition of U.S. trade partners. Concerns raised by TPP negotiating partners and many civic groups worldwide regarding TPP undermining access to affordable medicines, the Internet and even textbooks have resulted in a deadlock over the TPP Intellectual Property Chapter, leading to an impasse in the TPP talks, Public Citizen said. "The Obama administration's proposals are the worst - the most damaging for health - we have seen in a U.S. trade agreement to date. The Obama administration has backtracked from even the modest health considerations adopted under the Bush administration," said Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen's global access to medicines program. "The Obama administration's shameful bullying on behalf of the giant drug companies would lead to preventable suffering and death in Asia-Pacific countries. And soon the administration is expected to propose additional TPP terms that would lock Americans into high prices for cancer drugs for years to come." Previously, some elements of U.S. proposals for the Intellectual Property Chapter of the TPP had been leaked in 2011 and 2012. This leak is the first of a complete chapter revealing all countries' positions. There are more than 100 unresolved issues in the TPP Intellectual Property chapter. Even the wording of many footnotes is in dispute; one footnote negotiators agree on suggests they keep working out their differences over the wording of the other footnotes. The other 28 draft TPP chapters remain shrouded in secrecy. Last week, the AARP and major consumer groups wrote to the Obama administration to express their "deep concern" that U.S. proposals for the TPP would "limit the ability of states and the federal government to moderate escalating prescription drug, biologic drug and medical device costs in public programs," and contradict cost-cutting plans for biotech medicines in the White House budget. Other U.S.-demanded measures for the TPP would empower the tobacco giants to sue governments before foreign tribunals to demand taxpayer compensation for their health regulations and have been widely criticized. "This supposed trade negotiation has devolved into a secretive rulemaking against public health, on behalf of Big Pharma and Big Tobacco," said Maybarduk. "It is clear from the text obtained by WikiLeaks that the U.S. government is isolated and has lost this debate," Maybarduk said. "Our partners don't want to trade away their people's health. Americans don't want these measures either. Nevertheless, the Obama administration - on behalf of Big Pharma and big movie studios - now is trying to accomplish through pressure what it could not through persuasion." "The WikiLeaks text also features Hollywood and recording industry-inspired proposals - think about the SOPA debacle - to limit Internet freedom and access to educational materials, to force Internet providers to act as copyright enforcers and to cut off people's Internet access," said Burcu Kilic, an intellectual property lawyer with Public Citizen. "These proposals are deeply unpopular worldwide and have led to a negotiation stalemate." "Given how much text remains disputed, the negotiation will be very difficult to conclude," said Maybarduk. "Much more forward-looking proposals have been advanced by the other parties, but unless the U.S drops its out-there-alone demands, there may be no deal at all." "We understand that the only consideration the Obama administration plans to propose for access to affordable generic medicines is a very weak form of differential treatment for developing countries," said Maybarduk. The text obtained by WikiLeaks is available at wikileaks.org/tpp. Analysis of the leaked text is available at www.citizen.org/access. More information about the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is available at www.citizen.org/tpp. ### 2013 Public Citizen * 1600 20th Street, NW / Washington, D.C. 20009 * _______________________________________________ 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Nov 13 13:15:10 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 07:15:10 +1300 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT Message-ID: Dear All, This is to advise that these are the current nominations received for MAG Candidates that will go through the process of selection by a randomly selected NomCom. Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. 1. Asif Kabani 2. Rudi Vansnick 3. Sonigitu Ekpe 4. Imran Ahmed Shah 5. Fouad Bajwa 6. Katim S Touray 7. Stuart Hamilton Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 13:42:36 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:42:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 2 Days to Go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131113194236.6a43852f@quill> [with IGC coordinator hat on] In view of the short timeframe, I will use TODAY's UK national lottery draw as random seed. (The draw has not occurred yet at the time of this announcement.) 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 then, entered separately, the number of the "bonus ball"). Five voting NomCom members and then three reserves will be selected in this manner. [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 Greetings, Norbert Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:45:44 +1300, salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com wrote: > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. Adam Peake > 2. Ian Peter > 3. Kossi Amessinou > 4. Angela Daly > 5. Jeremy Hunsinger > 6. Kerry Brown > 7. Chaitanya Dhareshwar > 8. Erick Iriarte Ahon > 9. Ginger Paque > 10. Jose F Callo Romero > 11. Suresh Ramasubramanium > 12. Badouin Schombe > 13. Robin Gross > 14. Tapani Tarvainen > 15. David Cake > 16. Jeremy Malcolm > 17. Chun Eung Hwi > 18. Antonio Medina Gomez > 19. Shaila Rao Mistry > 20. Deirdre Williams > 21. Devon Blake > 22. José Félix Arias Ynche > 23. Michael Gurstein > 24. JFC Morfin > 25. Mwendwa Kivuva > 26. Dave Kissoondoyal -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 09:53:22 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (williams.deirdre at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:53:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 2 Days to Go In-Reply-To: <20131113194236.6a43852f@quill> References: <20131113194236.6a43852f@quill> Message-ID: <917458074-1384369090-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1860616494-@b26.c3.bise6.blackberry> Dear Norbert, I'm way down the coast looking for sugar mills in the bush but I seem to remember a previous problem about the nomcom chair (voting non voting???) Please can you check and reassure me as necessary? Thank you very much Deirdre Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:42:36 To: ; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Re: UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 2 Days to Go [with IGC coordinator hat on] In view of the short timeframe, I will use TODAY's UK national lottery draw as random seed. (The draw has not occurred yet at the time of this announcement.) 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 then, entered separately, the number of the "bonus ball"). Five voting NomCom members and then three reserves will be selected in this manner. [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 Greetings, Norbert Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:45:44 +1300, salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com wrote: > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. Adam Peake > 2. Ian Peter > 3. Kossi Amessinou > 4. Angela Daly > 5. Jeremy Hunsinger > 6. Kerry Brown > 7. Chaitanya Dhareshwar > 8. Erick Iriarte Ahon > 9. Ginger Paque > 10. Jose F Callo Romero > 11. Suresh Ramasubramanium > 12. Badouin Schombe > 13. Robin Gross > 14. Tapani Tarvainen > 15. David Cake > 16. Jeremy Malcolm > 17. Chun Eung Hwi > 18. Antonio Medina Gomez > 19. Shaila Rao Mistry > 20. Deirdre Williams > 21. Devon Blake > 22. José Félix Arias Ynche > 23. Michael Gurstein > 24. JFC Morfin > 25. Mwendwa Kivuva > 26. Dave Kissoondoyal -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Nov 13 14:26:55 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:26:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Sacrificing the ICANN Will Not Be Enough for the U, etc. In-Reply-To: <52834AE4.2010004@itforchange.net> References: <52834AE4.2010004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From r.deibert at utoronto.ca Wed Nov 13 15:03:25 2013 From: r.deibert at utoronto.ca (Ronald Deibert) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:03:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF 2013: An Analysis of the 2013 IGF and the Future of Internet Governance in Indonesia (Part 4 of 4) Message-ID: Dear IG list. (Apologies for cross posting) Citizen Lab has published the fourth and final report on information controls and the Indonesian IGF. The post is pasted below, and can be found here: https://citizenlab.org/2013/11/igf-2013-analysis-2013-igf-future-internet-governance-indonesia/ Cheers Ron IGF 2013: An Analysis of the 2013 IGF and the Future of Internet Governance in Indonesia (Part 4 of 4) November 13, 2013 IGF 2013 Series of Blog Posts: Framing post: Monitoring Information Controls During the Bali IGF IGF 2013: An Overview of Indonesian Internet Infrastructure and Governance (Part 1 of 4) IGF 2013: Analyzing Content Controls in Indonesia (Part 2 of 4) IGF 2013: Exploring Communications Surveillance in Indonesia (Part 3 of 4) IGF 2013: An Analysis of the 2013 IGF and the Future of Internet Governance in Indonesia (Part 4 of 4) Overview The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) brings various stakeholder groups together to discuss public policy issues related to the Internet. The 2013 IGF took place in Bali, Indonesia under the overarching theme of “Building Bridges: Enhancing Multistakeholder Cooperation for Growth and Sustainable Development.” For the country’s vibrant civil society, the IGF presented an opportunity to raise awareness, mobilize support, and shape the agenda as part of a multistakeholder process. Now that the forum has concluded, however, challenges remain in building out a progressive Internet governance agenda that realizes the right to freedom of expression and information. A growing number of Indonesia’s 240 million population use the Internet on a daily basis, whether to get around, to communicate with friends, or to get involved in social campaigns. Indonesia is quickly becoming the “social media capital of the world.” The capital city of Jakarta is the most active Twitter city in the world and the country as a whole is the fourth most active on Facebook. The government, recognizing the importance of high-speed Internet to economic and social development, has committed to developing the country’s information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure by launching the “Indonesia Connected” program to boost connectivity in border and remote areas. Along with this development, however, came an increase in government’s concern over online content. While multistakeholder groups have participated in the often contentious debate over what online content should be filtered, by whom, under what processes, and according to which laws, their impact on policymaking is uncertain. As discussed in our infrastructure and governance post, Indonesia is currently drafting or revising a number of ICT-related laws that contain serious human rights implications. It is important, therefore, that elements that maintain respect for human rights are incorporated in the scope of these legislations. The Snowden revelations and a number of high-profile corruption cases in Indonesia have renewed calls for stricter regulations regarding wiretapping. The draft Law on Information Technology Criminal Offence (RUU Tindak Pidana Teknologi Informatika (TIPITI)) has raised concerns for being too broad and containing harsher penalties than the controversial Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT) Law (Undang-Undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik). After much criticism, the government is currently revising the EIT law, particularly Article 45 which specifies the penalty for defamation as up to six years’ imprisonment and fines of up to IDR 1 billion (approximately USD 106,000). The penalty isreportedly changed from six years to three, but the revision stopped short of decriminalizing defamation. The Internet market in Indonesia is highly distributed and, as a consequence, the scope and depth of filtered content vary across over 200 different ISPs. Recently, however, the Indonesian government has aimed towards more centralized systems. The independent Nawala Foundation provides DNS server which enables service providers to block websites for pornography and gambling, among other categories. Its use is not compulsory for members of the Indonesian ISP Association (APJII), but it is encouraged. In addition, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) maintains and endorses Trust+ (Trust Positif), a set of configuration files and block lists for the popular open source Squid HTTP proxy and the SquidGuard add on which is an open source implementation of URL access control lists for Squid. Trust+ block lists include over 745,000 domain names and 55,000 URLs categorized as pornographic content. As implementation has been inconsistent across service providers, the MCIT is preparing a draft Ministerial Decree on the Controlling of Internet Websites with Negative Content (RPM Pengendalian Situs Internet Bermuatan Negatif) to establish uniform mechanism and condition for blocking and filtering. The implementation of content control in Indonesia has been criticized for a number of reasons. Representatives from the APJII have warned that the costs associated with implementing content filter systems are burdensome for smaller ISPs and could potentially slow down Internet traffic. Also, our research has found that there have been instances of “mission creep” where websites containing religious issues and religious advocacy groups, and content related to sexuality and gender (e.g. local LGBT community websites), among other content categories, are also blocked. Civil society has criticized government’s opaqueness and unresponsiveness to their concerns, especially with regard to the Trust+ system (e.g. which legislation governs the blocking mechanism of illegal content and the use of tools such as Trust+? If a website containing no illegal web content is blocked, what is the remedy mechanism? Who will pay for the costs incurred for the monitoring and screening of websites?). These concerns are made all the more serious when citizens are “very much invited” to participate in content control by forwarding URLs to an e-mail address or filling out a submission form (as of October 25, 2013, this form was “under development”). Civil Society’s Role in the 2013 IGF Civil society organizations play a key role in increasing awareness of citizens’ rights online. ICT Watch, one of our Cyber Stewards Network partners, as well as a number of other organizations such as Institute of Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM), Relawan TIK Indonesia (ICT Volunteers Indonesia), Center for Innovation Policy & Governance, and Hivos, launchedthe Indonesian CSO Network for Internet Governance (ID-CONFIG) in December 2012, which is a coalition of local civil society organizations (CSOs) that conducts dialogue on Internet governance issues on a regular basis. Under the banner of ID-CONFIG, civil society organizations participated actively in the 2013 IGF process. The Steering and Organizing Committees, for instance, include ID-CONFIG, the government, and the private sector. During the event’s planning stages, the Organizing Committee faceddelays in the finalization of the Host Country Agreement, as well as budgetary shortfalls (partially stemming from political turmoil following corruption allegations facing the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology), which threatened to see the event cancelled. The issue of funding for the 2013 meeting also sparked a more fundamental debate over how to fund the Internet Governance Forum generally. Following reports on social and news media that the Bali IGF would be cancelled due to a lack of funds, and a series of discussions on several mailing lists inquiring if this was really the case, the Chair of the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) and former IGF Executive Secretary, Markus Kummer, maintained that “the UN has not received any official confirmation that Indonesia is withdrawing its offer to host the 2013 IGF” and that “cancelling the whole event is no option.” The group was eventually able to raise the funds, with domestic and international actors making financial contributions to cover the funding gap. The coming together of these different stakeholders during the early stages of the event shaped how the 2013 IGF was constituted. The IGF has traditionally been a government-driven event as a substantial amount of funding is required to cover host country’s responsibilities, such as paying for the meeting venue and participant transportation, as well as the travel, per diem and at home replacement costs of UN staff, among other expenses. But the lack of government support provided the space for business and civil society communities to step up their role as a catalyst for the forum’s organization, and their influence could been seen throughout. For instance, in addition to fundraising for the event together, they suggested two overarching themes, “Internet Governance Towards Information Society through Multistakeholder Participation” and “Internet Governance to Achieve Sustainable Development through People’s Participation”. The theme which was adopted, “Building Bridges: Enhancing Multistakeholder Cooperation for Growth and Sustainable Development,” contained the key words “multistakeholder” and “sustainable development,” which were considered by these stakeholder groups as crucial components of Internet governance. Civil society formed an integral part of the 2013 IGF Secretariat, responsible for running the event, which meant that they were in charge of tasks such as creating and maintaining the website and determining the distribution of resources among participants (e.g. nine booths were allocated to civil society versus 17 in total for government and private sector). The Secretariat worked with the Penabulu Foundation, a Hivos partner organization, who introduced measures to ensure financial transparency and accountability, such as standard operating procedures for auditing and reporting. During the event, a number of workshops such as “Civil Society and Internet Governance: Multi-Stakeholder Engagement Practices from Southeast Asia and Beyond” and “Social Media for Social Movement: How Civil Society Can Optimize The Internet to Conduct Online Public Advocacy of Human Rights” were organized by civil society groups. Moreover, the event on Day 0 — this year it was referred to as the High Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM) — which is traditionally organized as a ministerial meeting, was broadened in scope. Over 70 civil society participants were invited and three of them were speakers — including Citizen Lab’s Director Ron Deibert — compared to only two speakers each from government and private sector. Indonesia’s Minister of Communications and Information Technology’s statement at the HLLM was drafted with input from civil society. Following the event’s conclusion, the 2013 IGF narrative report is being drafted by civil society, including the Citizen Lab. Citizen Lab staff and associates have participated in every IGF since the first meeting was held in Athens in 2006, as well as the WSIS meetings that preceded it in 2003 and 2005. At the 2005 WSIS meeting in Tunis, Citizen Lab researcher Nart Villeneuve’s presentation on Internet filtering was disrupted by Tunisian authorities and nearly cancelled. Moreover, our participation in the 2009 IGF in Egypt included having the book launch for the OpenNet Initiative’s “Access Controlled” interrupted by United Nations’ officials, following complaints by representatives for the government of China concerning our reference to Tibet and The Great Firewall of China in our published material. In contrast, the Citizen Lab was able to participate freely and openly at the 2013 IGF, including hosting a press conference on the publication of a series of blog posts titled “Monitoring Information Controls During the Bali IGF,” which discusses at length Indonesia’s content filtering and surveillance regimes. Looking Forward The IGF provided a springboard for Indonesian civil society organizations, working together with other stakeholder groups, to rally behind pressing Internet governance issues such as censorship and surveillance. The influence that civil society had on the 2013 IGF has been lauded as a model for how multistakeholder participation can operate at these events. It is hoped that the momentum of pushing for greater protection of the basic principles of human rights in the governing of the Internet in Indonesia can be maintained, and that the multistakeholder process can be sustained well past the event. The government is working towards building ICT infrastructure and services to connect the archipelagic country from Sabang to Merauke. Indonesia’s youthful population means that technologies like the Internet are being adopted quickly. By the end of 2013, Indonesia’s Internet penetration rate is expected to reach 33 percent, or roughly 80 million users. The business community’s role is crucial in ensuring that the growth in accessibility and usage of the Internet is achieved. For this development to happen, the country’s legal and regulatory framework must be consistent, greatly simplified, and harmonized to make it less burdensome and more transparent for business. These goals can be achieved by encouraging greater government accountability and transparency. Indonesia, as a founding member of the Open Government Partnership, has committed to a model of government that is “sustainably more transparent, more accountable, and more responsive to their own citizens.” The OGP pledge can be extended to the Internet governance sphere by the government’s collaboration with fellow stakeholders, such as businesses and civil society, when designing Internet-related policies, as well as creating mechanisms to facilitate and deepen this cooperation. For instance, while the government has held focus group discussions of early drafts of legislations, civil society has called for these discussions to be more transparent (e.g. recorded and made public), and for the government to ensure that relevant feedback are incorporated into the final drafts. One of the more urgent concerns faced by the Indonesian government is cybercrime, and the population is becoming even more aware of its impact. A recent Akamai report indicated that the number of cybercrime incidents in the country is growing significantly. It is unsurprising, therefore, that Indonesia is involved in a number of regional initiatives to combat cybercrime. In 2011, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) met in Bali to discuss transnational crime, recognizing that the organization should jointly combat cybercrime. The ASEAN Senior Officials Meeting on Transnational Crime met in Vietnam in 2013 to reconfirm its commitment to fighting crime in the region, and concluded with an endorsement for the creation of a working group on cybercrime. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), of which Indonesia is a member, is working to ensure cooperation on combating cybercrime through the “Security and Prosperity Steering Group Experts Group on Cybercrime,” which is designed to “promote and improve cooperation among member economies in the fight against cybercrime.” Cybercrime issues are also expected to be discussed at the Ninth World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference to be held in Indonesia in December 2013. Commentators are urging the WTO to help global victims of cybercrime and economic cyber espionage through clear “guidelines and penalties.” Unless a balance is maintained between national security concerns and lawful procedures and oversight mechanisms, these initiatives run the risk of adversely impacting civil liberties and human rights. As development continues apace, civil society has an important role to play in engaging the general public, government, and private sector to ensure that Indonesia’s Internet governance regime respects and protects basic principles of human rights. Achieving this balance requires constant monitoring and continuous reexamination of policies and practices, and a proactive engagement with like-minded domestic and international stakeholders. With the impending establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community 2015, it is expected that there will be more consolidated collaboration in the area of cybercrime and cyber security. Together with our colleagues in the region, we will be monitoring developments in the country’s Internet governance agenda closely and support one that promotes democracy, human rights, transparency, and accountability. Ronald Deibert Director, the Citizen Lab and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies Munk School of Global Affairs University of Toronto (416) 946-8916 PGP: http://deibert.citizenlab.org/pubkey.txt http://deibert.citizenlab.org/ twitter.com/citizenlab r.deibert at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 16:31:38 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:31:38 +1200 Subject: [governance] Sacrificing the ICANN Will Not Be Enough for the U, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <52834AE4.2010004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: > Are you going to attend on behalf of CS? > jfc > > Hi JFC, I will only use my hat as co-coordinator if there is a session on Internet Governance during the ICANN meeting and will not necessarily speak on an issue for the IGC unless there is legitimacy or consensus carried out to relay a position. I am an elected member into the ALAC from the Asian Australian Pacific Regional At Large Organisation and will conclude my term in the ALAC at the end of ICANN 48.It is this hat that I am going in. People differ on this lists in terms of participating versus not participating in ICANN and that is freedom of choice. For me *my personal choice *was carefully made and at first I even resisted the idea but the thought that there was policy and series of policies being developed that affected a vast communities around the world and if I did not come to the table, cold be left out of the discussions and considerations. If you ask anyone on the ALAC, or in the community, I have never minced my sense of independence and contributions have been made on what I perceive or could reasonably forecast would affect communities in underserved regions. The fact remains that ICANN is mandated to develop policies concerning and affecting a core part of critical internet infrastructure and I certainly want to be at the table giving my perspective irrespective of the "politicization". Personally, I feel that whilst the "politicization" is taking place, of greater impact are the policies being developed. What I love about ICANN is that they are open to hearing and receiving input about the policy processes or technical aspects from all who will come to the table, even cynics and critics and it will be factored into the discussions and recorded or narrated either through transcripts. But if we do not come to the table, who then will lend our voice. This often means poring over archived documents, slaving over policy documents, archived email records, attending 2am - 5am and sometimes till 6am teleconference calls (which I do not get paid to do). I personally find myself looking out for what will impact my own communities within the Pacific and being a bridge by highlighting what I perceive to be critical issues that deserve input and comments. Whilst civil society remains divided on whether or not to participate in certain forums, for people who come from communities like mine where if we don't keep up we get left behind. Whilst we are on politicization, if you recall the video that Gurstein sent on the IETF88, when Carpenter was sharing about the history of the RFCs on Surveillance, Security etc, he had mentioned that it was Governments who were objecting to the nature of some the debates and discussions going on because it would impede on their surveillance mechanisms. This is one of the core reasons why I do not believe that Governments or regulators should encroach on the development of technical standards and core operational matters pertaining to the Internet. However, on the same note, I also feel that there is room for improvement on things like SSAC within ICANN where there should be more inclusion from other countries and not just a closed circle. Hope this helps. Sala > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 16:56:05 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:56:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 2 Days to Go In-Reply-To: <917458074-1384369090-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1860616494-@b26.c3.bise6.blackberry> References: <20131113194236.6a43852f@quill> <917458074-1384369090-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1860616494-@b26.c3.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: <20131113225605.03845cd3@quill> williams.deirdre at gmail.com wrote: > Dear Norbert, > I'm way down the coast looking for sugar mills in the bush but I seem > to remember a previous problem about the nomcom chair (voting non > voting???) Please can you check and reassure me as necessary? > Thank you very much > Deirdre [with IGC coordinator hat on] Hi Deirdre The relevant quote from the Charter is as follows: 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. There has in the past been some discussion about whether this should be interpreted as the coordinators appointing one of the five people who are randomly selected, or as appointing a non-voting chair in addition to the five voting members of the nomcom are which determined by means of the random selection process, in addition to these five a non-voting chair is appointed by the IGC coordinators. There is some (IMO decisive) evidence in relevant historic documents that the latter interpretation is correct; in any case that is the interpretation that has been used in recent nomcom selections, and we're using the same interpretation for the present nomcom selection. Under this interpretation of the Charter, under normal circumstances, an IGC nomcom consists of six people, namely five voting members plus the non-voting chair. We had a special situation in one of the recent nomcoms when the non-voting chair resigned in the middle of the nomcom process, because of a conflict of interest that he had not been able to foresee. That situation was handled by one of the people who had been randomly selected as a voting member agreeing to change status from voting member to non-voting chair. But that was a special situation which I sincerely hope will not repeat itself. 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Nov 13 17:27:51 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:27:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] NEW - English Version of Brazilian Marco Civil Bill Message-ID: Dear all, *** sorry for cross-posting *** during the past few days I used some hours translating the new version of the Marco Civil made public last week. This version has receive great support of the Brazilian civil society and has also gather great (but not yet enough) support from legislators. Please, find it attached. The first column was the initial public text, the second one IS THE NEW OFFICIAL version and the third one its translation. The text in yellow are some of the core changes...however, they do not mirror what was deleted. Best, C -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MC_Eng_CR_Nov_13_2013.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 189444 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 Wed Nov 13 17:29:06 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:29:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 2 Days to Go In-Reply-To: <20131113194236.6a43852f@quill> References: <20131113194236.6a43852f@quill> Message-ID: <20131113232906.7516cc31@quill> Norbert Bollow wrote, before the UK national lottery draw took place: > In view of the short timeframe, I will use TODAY's UK national lottery > draw as random seed. [..] (the six "ball numbers" and then, entered > separately, the number of the "bonus ball"). Five voting NomCom > members and then three reserves will be selected in this manner. [with IGC coordinator hat on] The six "ball numbers" of today's draw were 4 6 15 23 36 44 and the "bonus ball" was 11, resulting in the following random selections: Selected as voting nomcom members: * 6. Kerry Brown * 24. JFC Morfin * 19. Shaila Rao Mistry * 15. David Cake * 20. Deirdre Williams Reserves: 1st reserve: 5. Jeremy Hunsinger 2nd reserve: 9. Ginger Paque 3rd reserve: 17. Chun Eung Hwi Again, thank you all for volunteering, and congratulations to the winners of the lottery. :-) The next step is the appointment of the non-voting chair. According to the IGC Charter, this is to be done by the coordinators "with the advice of the IGC membership". In view of the situation with the tight timeline, Sala's and my initial thoughts are to look for someone from the list of volunteers (who was not randomly selected as voting member) with nomcom experience, as those who have volunteered have already expressed willingness to give up time which is not easy at this time of the year with holidays and budget preparation deadlines etc. In any case, since the charter says "with the advice of the IGC membership", there is a need to provide an opportunity for such advice. However, in view of the tight timeline, we can assure that such advice will be taken into account only if it received by Thursday Nov 14 noon UTC. If you wish to provide advice, please try to post your thoughts before that time. Greetings, Norbert P.S. Again, the list of nomcom volunteers was: > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > > > 1. Adam Peake > > 2. Ian Peter > > 3. Kossi Amessinou > > 4. Angela Daly > > 5. Jeremy Hunsinger > > 6. Kerry Brown > > 7. Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > 8. Erick Iriarte Ahon > > 9. Ginger Paque > > 10. Jose F Callo Romero > > 11. Suresh Ramasubramanium > > 12. Badouin Schombe > > 13. Robin Gross > > 14. Tapani Tarvainen > > 15. David Cake > > 16. Jeremy Malcolm > > 17. Chun Eung Hwi > > 18. Antonio Medina Gomez > > 19. Shaila Rao Mistry > > 20. Deirdre Williams > > 21. Devon Blake > > 22. José Félix Arias Ynche > > 23. Michael Gurstein > > 24. JFC Morfin > > 25. Mwendwa Kivuva > > 26. Dave Kissoondoyal > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 arin.net Wed Nov 13 17:36:21 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:36:21 +0000 Subject: Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society In-Reply-To: <02b601cedff1$7947bce0$6bd736a0$@gmail.com> References: <026701cedfe4$e10b8850$a32298f0$@gmail.com> <2621D9A7-F2EE-4DDB-89B1-984B49F8644B@arin.net> <02b601cedff1$7947bce0$6bd736a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Nov 12, 2013, at 4:52 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Fair question John and I should say that I did notice a rather more nuanced > approach to the discussion of MSism at least by some in Bali. > > I think one way to start is by not referring to MSism without some sort of > qualification as for example limiting it to areas concerning consultation, > discussion or process and not having it refer to "governance" per se. Agreed. I believe that it is best to refer to "multistakeholder mechanisms" or "multistakeholder processes"... such that would equally suitable to having open and inclusive dialogues about any topic (e.g. climate change), while we just happen to use these multistakeholder mechanisms for the coordination of critical Internet identifiers. In the ideal world, we'd have a clear and generally accepted definition for what constituted valid "multistakeholder mechanisms"; an objective definition which would readily allow distinction of true multistakeholder processes from otherwise nominal attempts to appear similar (attempts generally based on ad-hoc solicitation of input without actual transparency of process or due consideration of the input received...) > A second way to proceed is to delimit applying MSism (e.g. as in having > those directly involved in the outcome of the decisions having a role in > making the decisions) to those areas having to do with the governance or > management of various of the technical aspects of the Internet and not the > more traditional areas of public policy e.g. taxation, various human rights > elements, costing etc. I think we agree, but I might reverse the causal aspects of the statement for clarity: We commit to use multistakeholder mechanisms for coordination of technical aspects of the Internet, and do not presume their universal applicability in all matters Internet... i.e. sometimes the discussion of public policy matters as applied to the Internet may be facilitated via multistakeholder mechanisms (as we see with IGF), but that doesn't presume all such dialogues of Internet public policy must be done via multistakeholder mechanisms. Is the above comparable in meaning, or was your original intent lost in the rephrasing? > A third way is to recognize that to all intents and purposes CS in its > current form in the IG is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and > accepting the implications of that for the overall MS model. The > implications of taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism > is so important for various of the actors involved then some significant > efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable, effective > and legitimate partner. I have no view on this assertion, but stand by to assist as needed if there improvements that CS wishes to undertake, and for which myself (or ARIN) can be service. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 17:52:44 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:52:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 2 Days to Go In-Reply-To: <20131113232906.7516cc31@quill> References: <20131113194236.6a43852f@quill> <20131113232906.7516cc31@quill> Message-ID: Dear Norbert, #23 is Michael Gurstein not me?? Deirdre On 13 November 2013 18:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Norbert Bollow wrote, before the UK national lottery > draw took place: > > > In view of the short timeframe, I will use TODAY's UK national lottery > > draw as random seed. [..] (the six "ball numbers" and then, entered > > separately, the number of the "bonus ball"). Five voting NomCom > > members and then three reserves will be selected in this manner. > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > The six "ball numbers" of today's draw were 4 6 15 23 36 44 and the > "bonus ball" was 11, resulting in the following random selections: > > Selected as voting nomcom members: > > * 6. Kerry Brown > * 24. JFC Morfin > * 19. Shaila Rao Mistry > * 15. David Cake > * 20. Deirdre Williams > > Reserves: > > 1st reserve: 5. Jeremy Hunsinger > 2nd reserve: 9. Ginger Paque > 3rd reserve: 17. Chun Eung Hwi > > Again, thank you all for volunteering, and congratulations to the > winners of the lottery. :-) > > The next step is the appointment of the non-voting chair. According to > the IGC Charter, this is to be done by the coordinators "with the > advice of the IGC membership". > > In view of the situation with the tight timeline, Sala's and my initial > thoughts are to look for someone from the list of volunteers (who was > not randomly selected as voting member) with nomcom experience, as those > who have volunteered have already expressed willingness to give up time > which is not easy at this time of the year with holidays and budget > preparation deadlines etc. > > In any case, since the charter says "with the advice of the IGC > membership", there is a need to provide an opportunity for such advice. > However, in view of the tight timeline, we can assure that such advice > will be taken into account only if it received by Thursday Nov 14 noon > UTC. If you wish to provide advice, please try to post your thoughts > before that time. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > P.S. Again, the list of nomcom volunteers was: > > > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > > > > > 1. Adam Peake > > > 2. Ian Peter > > > 3. Kossi Amessinou > > > 4. Angela Daly > > > 5. Jeremy Hunsinger > > > 6. Kerry Brown > > > 7. Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > > 8. Erick Iriarte Ahon > > > 9. Ginger Paque > > > 10. Jose F Callo Romero > > > 11. Suresh Ramasubramanium > > > 12. Badouin Schombe > > > 13. Robin Gross > > > 14. Tapani Tarvainen > > > 15. David Cake > > > 16. Jeremy Malcolm > > > 17. Chun Eung Hwi > > > 18. Antonio Medina Gomez > > > 19. Shaila Rao Mistry > > > 20. Deirdre Williams > > > 21. Devon Blake > > > 22. José Félix Arias Ynche > > > 23. Michael Gurstein > > > 24. JFC Morfin > > > 25. Mwendwa Kivuva > > > 26. Dave Kissoondoyal > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 Nov 13 18:20:52 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:20:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 2 Days to Go In-Reply-To: References: <20131113194236.6a43852f@quill> <20131113232906.7516cc31@quill> Message-ID: <20131114002052.6e679083@quill> Deirdre Williams wrote: > Dear Norbert, > #23 is Michael Gurstein not me?? > Deirdre [with IGC coordinator hat on] Hi Deidre Yes, but the "23" was part of the UK national lottery results which were used as part of the input data for the software that made the selection among the 26 volunteers. (As announced in advance, this selection has been 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.) [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 The output of the program did not include "23", but it included "20", which is your number. So, congratulations are due to you. :-) Greetings, Norbert > > > On 13 November 2013 18:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Norbert Bollow wrote, before the UK national lottery > > draw took place: > > > > > In view of the short timeframe, I will use TODAY's UK national > > > lottery draw as random seed. [..] (the six "ball numbers" and > > > then, entered separately, the number of the "bonus ball"). Five > > > voting NomCom members and then three reserves will be selected in > > > this manner. > > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > The six "ball numbers" of today's draw were 4 6 15 23 36 44 and the > > "bonus ball" was 11, resulting in the following random selections: > > > > Selected as voting nomcom members: > > > > * 6. Kerry Brown > > * 24. JFC Morfin > > * 19. Shaila Rao Mistry > > * 15. David Cake > > * 20. Deirdre Williams > > > > Reserves: > > > > 1st reserve: 5. Jeremy Hunsinger > > 2nd reserve: 9. Ginger Paque > > 3rd reserve: 17. Chun Eung Hwi > > > > Again, thank you all for volunteering, and congratulations to the > > winners of the lottery. :-) > > > > The next step is the appointment of the non-voting chair. According > > to the IGC Charter, this is to be done by the coordinators "with the > > advice of the IGC membership". > > > > In view of the situation with the tight timeline, Sala's and my > > initial thoughts are to look for someone from the list of > > volunteers (who was not randomly selected as voting member) with > > nomcom experience, as those who have volunteered have already > > expressed willingness to give up time which is not easy at this > > time of the year with holidays and budget preparation deadlines etc. > > > > In any case, since the charter says "with the advice of the IGC > > membership", there is a need to provide an opportunity for such > > advice. However, in view of the tight timeline, we can assure that > > such advice will be taken into account only if it received by > > Thursday Nov 14 noon UTC. If you wish to provide advice, please try > > to post your thoughts before that time. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > P.S. Again, the list of nomcom volunteers was: > > > > > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > > > > > > > 1. Adam Peake > > > > 2. Ian Peter > > > > 3. Kossi Amessinou > > > > 4. Angela Daly > > > > 5. Jeremy Hunsinger > > > > 6. Kerry Brown > > > > 7. Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > > > 8. Erick Iriarte Ahon > > > > 9. Ginger Paque > > > > 10. Jose F Callo Romero > > > > 11. Suresh Ramasubramanium > > > > 12. Badouin Schombe > > > > 13. Robin Gross > > > > 14. Tapani Tarvainen > > > > 15. David Cake > > > > 16. Jeremy Malcolm > > > > 17. Chun Eung Hwi > > > > 18. Antonio Medina Gomez > > > > 19. Shaila Rao Mistry > > > > 20. Deirdre Williams > > > > 21. Devon Blake > > > > 22. José Félix Arias Ynche > > > > 23. Michael Gurstein > > > > 24. JFC Morfin > > > > 25. Mwendwa Kivuva > > > > 26. Dave Kissoondoyal > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your 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 Nov 13 19:08:57 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 05:38:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] NEW - English Version of Brazilian Marco Civil Bill In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Carolina, thank you for the detailed translation of the latest Marco Civil draft. I was wondering where I would find one of these, with my only knowledge of portuguese being "Oi, Tudo Bem" and "Uma cerveja, por favor" :) On a more serious note, I am glad to see security mentioned in the preamble of the bill (point V - "ensuring stability, security and network functionality [...] best practices" - but there is very little treatment of this elsewhere in the bill. And speaking as a security practitioner in my day job, some of the elements of the bill - on log retention - may in fact conflict with best security practice, where a lack of logging may actually be counterproductive to early detection and mitigation of DoS attacks, spam and malware. I would have been more comfortable if an explicit provision was made for this as an allowed use case - though to be sure the spirit of Marco Civil does have this in mind, looking at point V from the preamble. Additionally, I am sure you are aware that Brazil has a large number of email marketers who don't follow industry best practices on spam, and tend to gather email addresses indiscriminately, without any effort to only send marketing email to their customers / subscribers where there is an "optin" relationship, and even unsubscribe requests tend to be ignored for one reason or the other. This is in addition to a rather large local e-crime (banking malware, DDoS etc) problem, with local actors targeting brazilian citizens and financial institutions as much as they do the rest of the world. To be sure cert-br and cgi.br have been very proactive in this matter so far, but the problem is massive and needs local engagement with the relevant stakeholders from ISPs and from the email marketing industry, as well as outreach through civil society and other stakeholders to facilitate public awareness and education in this area. I would be thankful to you if you could put me in touch with whoever you see as relevant stakeholders from civil society and the technical / ISP community in Brazil who would be interested in ensuring that the security and stability of the internet, and the safety and privacy against spam / malware [etc] of internet users, is maintained and furthered. thanks --srs (iPad) > On 14-Nov-2013, at 3:57, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > Dear all, > > *** sorry for cross-posting *** > > during the past few days I used some hours translating the new version of the Marco Civil made public last week. > > This version has receive great support of the Brazilian civil society and has also gather great (but not yet enough) support from legislators. > > Please, find it attached. The first column was the initial public text, the second one IS THE NEW OFFICIAL version and the third one its translation. The text in yellow are some of the core changes...however, they do not mirror what was deleted. > > Best, > > C > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Nov 13 19:34:25 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:34:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [A2k] Breaking: WikiLeaks docs show Obama rollbacks on health, Internet freedom -- Complete IP Chapter Leaked In-Reply-To: <063601cee099$e77ed470$b67c7d50$@gmail.com> References: <7A38D634983D414EBCD5D940CACABC8D03BD97283F@MBX17.exg5.exghost.com> <063601cee099$e77ed470$b67c7d50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 18:58 13/11/2013, michael gurstein wrote: >Leaked Documents Reveal Obama Administration Push for Internet Freedom >Limits, Terms That Raise Drug Prices in Closed-Door Trade Talks This is the way "global community market led" social-capitalism actualy works. It is well explained by Aristotle: the richer the buyer, the lower the price, and vice versa. We have reached the maximum: we sell ourselves for free. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 13 19:41:41 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 06:11:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52841C45.7050706@itforchange.net> Dear Co-coordinators IT for Change will like to put forward the name of Mawaki Chango to be considered by the nomcom. We have obtained his consent for that. We are awaiting another confirmation. Can you please again remind us of the deadline. Thanks, parminder On Wednesday 13 November 2013 11:45 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > This is to advise that these are the current nominations received for > MAG Candidates that will go through the process of selection by a > randomly selected NomCom. > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be > diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > 1. > > Asif Kabani > > 2. > > Rudi Vansnick > > 3. > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > 4. > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > 5. > > Fouad Bajwa > > 6. > > Katim S Touray > > 7. > > Stuart Hamilton > > > Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but > awaiting clarification -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Nov 13 20:00:48 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:00:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: <52841C45.7050706@itforchange.net> References: <52841C45.7050706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 20:03:06 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 06:33:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <52841C45.7050706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <26712674-2DDA-4677-B7CD-B1CC52154948@hserus.net> Jefsey, as a nomcom member you are supposed to stay neutral and not endorse specific candidates in so public a manner. Just a reminder. --srs (iPad) > On 14-Nov-2013, at 6:30, JFC Morfin wrote: > > +1 > On 01:41 14/11/2013, parminder said: >> Dear Co-coordinators >>  IT for Change will like to put forward the name of Mawaki Chango to be considered by the nomcom. We have obtained his consent for that. We are awaiting another confirmation. Can you please again remind us of the deadline. >> >> Thanks, parminder >> >>> On Wednesday 13 November 2013 11:45 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> This is to advise that these are the current nominations received for MAG Candidates that will go through the process of selection by a randomly selected NomCom. >>> >>> Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection  can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>> Asif Kabani >>> Rudi Vansnick >>> Sonigitu Ekpe >>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> Katim S Touray >>> Stuart Hamilton >>> >>> Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification >> >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Wed Nov 13 20:05:33 2013 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:05:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 2 Days to Go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: please Sala, Correct my first name: [?]BAUDOUIN *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2013/11/12 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > > Dear All, > > As you know there are only two days to do before we close the call for > the NomCom that will appoint the MAG nominees submitted by the IGC. > > Here is the recent update: > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. > > Adam Peake > 2. > > Ian Peter > 3. > > Kossi Amessinou > 4. > > Angela Daly > 5. > > Jeremy Hunsinger > 6. > > Kerry Brown > 7. > > Chaitanya Dhareshwar > 8. > > Erick Iriarte Ahon > 9. > > Ginger Paque > 10. > > Jose F Callo Romero > 11. > > Suresh Ramasubramanium > 12. > > Badouin Schombe > 13. > > Robin Gross > 14. > > Tapani Tarvainen > 15. > > David Cake > 16. > > Jeremy Malcolm > 17. > > Chun Eung Hwi > 18. > > Antonio Medina Gomez > 19. > > Shaila Rao Mistry > 20. > > Deirdre Williams > 21. > > Devon Blake > 22. > > José Félix Arias Ynche > > > > [We need 3 more to volunteer for the NomCom] > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > 1. > > Asif Kabani > 2. > > Rudi Vansnick > 3. > > Sonigitu Ekpe > 4. > > Imran Ahmed Shah > 5. > > Fouad Bajwa > 6. > > Katim S Touray > > > Note: Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification as to > what specifically he is volunteering for NomCom or MAG > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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: 35C.gif Type: image/gif Size: 97 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Nov 13 20:44:09 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:44:09 +0100 Subject: Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Message-ID: On 23:36 13/11/2013, John Curran said: >Agreed. I believe that it is best to refer to "multistakeholder mechanisms" >or "multistakeholder processes"... such that would equally suitable to having >open and inclusive dialogues about any topic (e.g. climate change), while we >just happen to use these multistakeholder mechanisms for the coordination of >critical Internet identifiers. Correct. I suggested that it is in polycracy what is equivalent to votes in democracy. "We reject kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code" (David Clark). >I think we agree, but I might reverse the causal aspects of the statement >for clarity: We commit to use multistakeholder mechanisms for coordination >of technical aspects of the Internet, and do not presume their universal >applicability in all matters Internet... i.e. sometimes the discussion of >public policy matters as applied to the Internet may be facilitated via >multistakeholder mechanisms (as we see with IGF), but that doesn't presume >all such dialogues of Internet public policy must be done via multistakeholder >mechanisms. Incorrect. Internet as a meshed system calls for polycracy. This is fractal. Not to use an MS methode somewhere is like not using votes in a democractic environment. This is possible only when switching from politics to command. > > A third way is to recognize that to all intents and purposes CS in its > > current form in the IG is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and > > accepting the implications of that for the overall MS model. The > > implications of taking this latter position is that if an > adherence to MSism > > is so important for various of the actors involved then some significant > > efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable, effective > > and legitimate partner. I am afraid there is a layer violation. The whole system is fractal (as being distributed) as being hierarchical in a decentralised context. CS is acknoweldged as a group of multiple stakeholders by the WSIS. It is to interact at that layer with Govs, Business and Multilateral. The I*Society is an US stakeholder enhanced cooperation between the US (led) industry and the USG over technical issues. This a kind of layer violation that want to make believe that it gathers all the technicians. The CS is as diverse and as internally complex as the Governments MS Group (cf. the WCIT split), the business (cf. Internet leaders/Majors vs. standard businesses), and Multilateral (cf. ISO, ITU, IETF, IEEE). The real problem is that only a kind of CS partners is active. For example, religions are missings. This may ultimately lead to societal/cultural problems. As having successfully fought for multilinguiization (every language on an equal footing) against internationalization (every language on an equal footing provided it is English) at the IETF, I know about it. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Nov 13 20:45:43 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:45:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: <26712674-2DDA-4677-B7CD-B1CC52154948@hserus.net> References: <52841C45.7050706@itforchange.net> <26712674-2DDA-4677-B7CD-B1CC52154948@hserus.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 21:28:16 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 07:58:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <52841C45.7050706@itforchange.net> <26712674-2DDA-4677-B7CD-B1CC52154948@hserus.net> Message-ID: Thanks for understanding --srs (iPad) > On 14-Nov-2013, at 7:15, JFC Morfin wrote: > > On 02:03 14/11/2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian said: >> Jefsey, as a nomcom member you are supposed to stay neutral and not endorse specific candidates in so public a manner. Just a reminder. > > Thank you. Sorry, I am a novice in this office. > jfc > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Nov 13 18:10:24 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:10:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT 2 Days to Go In-Reply-To: <20131113225605.03845cd3@quill> References: <20131113194236.6a43852f@quill> <917458074-1384369090-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1860616494-@b26.c3.bise6.blackberry> <20131113225605.03845cd3@quill> Message-ID: Thank you very much for the clarification. Deirdre On 13 November 2013 17:56, Norbert Bollow wrote: > williams.deirdre at gmail.com wrote: > > > Dear Norbert, > > I'm way down the coast looking for sugar mills in the bush but I seem > > to remember a previous problem about the nomcom chair (voting non > > voting???) Please can you check and reassure me as necessary? > > Thank you very much > > Deirdre > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Hi Deirdre > > The relevant quote from the Charter is as follows: > > 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. > > There has in the past been some discussion about whether this should > be interpreted as the coordinators appointing one of the five people > who are randomly selected, or as appointing a non-voting chair in > addition to the five voting members of the nomcom are which determined > by means of the random selection process, in addition to these five a > non-voting chair is appointed by the IGC coordinators. > > There is some (IMO decisive) evidence in relevant historic documents > that the latter interpretation is correct; in any case that is the > interpretation that has been used in recent nomcom selections, and > we're using the same interpretation for the present nomcom selection. > > Under this interpretation of the Charter, under normal circumstances, > an IGC nomcom consists of six people, namely five voting members plus > the non-voting chair. > > We had a special situation in one of the recent nomcoms when the > non-voting chair resigned in the middle of the nomcom process, because > of a conflict of interest that he had not been able to foresee. > That situation was handled by one of the people who had been randomly > selected as a voting member agreeing to change status from voting > member to non-voting chair. But that was a special situation which I > sincerely hope will not repeat itself. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Nov 13 22:34:01 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:34:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <52841C45.7050706@itforchange.net> <26712674-2DDA-4677-B7CD-B1CC52154948@hserus.net> Message-ID: I'd like to nominate Nnenna Nwakanma as a candidate for the MAG. Nnenna has agreed. Hope not too late. Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 13 22:36:59 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:06:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <52841C45.7050706@itforchange.net> <26712674-2DDA-4677-B7CD-B1CC52154948@hserus.net> Message-ID: A very good choice which I support. --srs (iPad) > On 14-Nov-2013, at 9:04, Adam Peake wrote: > > I'd like to nominate Nnenna Nwakanma as a candidate for the MAG. Nnenna has agreed. Hope not too late. > > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Nov 13 22:39:16 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:39:16 +1200 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <52841C45.7050706@itforchange.net> <26712674-2DDA-4677-B7CD-B1CC52154948@hserus.net> Message-ID: You are still in time. We still have 7 and a half hours to go. So if there are additional names for IGC Nominees to the MAG please keep them coming and quickly. Sala On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > I'd like to nominate Nnenna Nwakanma as a candidate for the MAG. Nnenna > has agreed. Hope not too late. > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 22:52:44 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:52:44 +1200 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [7 more hours to Go] URGENT Message-ID: Dear All, Many thanks to those who have boldly put their names forward for the IGC MAG Nominees. We would like to urge those of you who are still double minded, to sieze the moment and take advantage of the remaining 7 hours to put forward a name for the list of IGC MAG Nominees. For those nominating, please get the consent of those you are nominating to ensure a seamless process. Can some more women put their names forward. I love our men but we also need to have some women in the mix - please! By the way coordinators don't have a say in the selection as this will be purely a selection by the NomCom. This is an update of the names received so far. Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. 1. Asif Kabani 2. Rudi Vansnick 3. Sonigitu Ekpe 4. Imran Ahmed Shah 5. Fouad Bajwa 6. Katim S Touray 7. Stuart Hamilton 8. Mawaki Chango 9. Nnenna Nwakanma Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification as to what specifically they are volunteering for NomCom or MAG Kind Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Nov 13 23:13:14 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:13:14 +1100 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [7 more hours to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <85E45BD9357344739AD2B4E6E7CA1851@Toshiba> Hi Sala, it is not clear to me whether current members of the MAG need to put their name forward for re-endorsement by IGF. Can that be clarified? Also –given this was not clear to many of us and there are only a few hours remaining during which time these MAG members may not check this list, I would suggest that the incoming MAG needs to have the flexibility to approach current MAG members and clarify their intentions. Ian Peter From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:52 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [7 more hours to Go] URGENT Dear All, Many thanks to those who have boldly put their names forward for the IGC MAG Nominees. We would like to urge those of you who are still double minded, to sieze the moment and take advantage of the remaining 7 hours to put forward a name for the list of IGC MAG Nominees. For those nominating, please get the consent of those you are nominating to ensure a seamless process. Can some more women put their names forward. I love our men but we also need to have some women in the mix - please! By the way coordinators don't have a say in the selection as this will be purely a selection by the NomCom. This is an update of the names received so far. Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. 1.. Asif Kabani 2.. Rudi Vansnick 3.. Sonigitu Ekpe 4.. Imran Ahmed Shah 5.. Fouad Bajwa 6.. Katim S Touray 7.. Stuart Hamilton 8.. Mawaki Chango 9.. Nnenna Nwakanma Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification as to what specifically they are volunteering for NomCom or MAG Kind Regards, Sala -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 23:36:07 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:36:07 +1200 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [7 more hours to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: <85E45BD9357344739AD2B4E6E7CA1851@Toshiba> References: <85E45BD9357344739AD2B4E6E7CA1851@Toshiba> Message-ID: Dear Ian, This is an excerpt from what Adam sent the IGC in relation to the matter: *Starts:* *Text of Wu Hongbo's letter about renewal below.Current MAG members can re-submit.Is a little unclear, does it mean they must re-submit, and if they don't will be assumed not interested?AdamMAG Renewal 2014The Internet Governance Forum's Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) has been instrumental in planning the programme of the annual IGF meetings.We would like to express our gratitude to all past and present members of MAG who have donated their time, effort and valuable guidance in ensuring the smooth running of the IGF.On behalf of the United Nations Secretary-General, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) requests nominations from all stakeholder groups, according to the established principles and practices of MAG on the rotation and selection of its members. Governments, the private sector, civil society, and technical community should submit names of candidates from developed and developing countries as well as from economies in transition. Successful nominees will become part of MAG for a period of one year and will contribute to the multi-stakeholder consultation process, bringing the perspectives of their respective groups on Internet governance. Group nominees should be members who have actively participated in IGF meetings and activities in the past. As in previous years, stakeholder groups can resubmit the names of current MAG members for re-election and are expected to publicize the selection and nomination process.Please submit the names of nominees to the IGF Secretariat by 1 December 2013 via email:magrenewal2014 at intgovforum.org , using the attached submission template. The aim is to rotate one third of MAG members.Selection and Operation Principles:(i) MAG members are selected to achieve a balance among all stakeholder groups, while retaining regional and gender representation, according to established procedures;(ii) All MAG members serve in their personal capacity but are expected to have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups;(iii) The main task of MAG is to provide advice on the programme and main themes of the next meeting of the IGF;(iv) MAG members are expected to attend two to three MAG meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, in addition to the annual IGF meeting. They should participate actively in the preparatory process throughout the year, through engagement in the online multilateral dialogue among MAG members;(v) MAG meetings are open to Intergovernmental organizations.Thank you and I look forward to the continued success of the Internet Governance Forum.* *Ends* On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Sala, > > it is not clear to me whether current members of the MAG need to put their > name forward for re-endorsement by IGF. Can that be clarified? > > Also –given this was not clear to many of us and there are only a few > hours remaining during which time these MAG members may not check this > list, I would suggest that the incoming MAG needs to have the flexibility > to approach current MAG members and clarify their intentions. > > Ian Peter > > > > *From:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:52 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [7 more > hours to Go] URGENT > > Dear All, > > Many thanks to those who have boldly put their names forward for the IGC > MAG Nominees. We would like to urge those of you who are still double > minded, to sieze the moment and take advantage of the remaining 7 hours to > put forward a name for the list of IGC MAG Nominees. For those nominating, > please get the consent of those you are nominating to ensure a seamless > process. > > Can some more women put their names forward. I love our men but we also > need to have some women in the mix - please! By the way coordinators don't > have a say in the selection as this will be purely a selection by the > NomCom. > > This is an update of the names received so far. > > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > 1. > > Asif Kabani > 2. > > Rudi Vansnick > 3. > > Sonigitu Ekpe > 4. > > Imran Ahmed Shah > 5. > > Fouad Bajwa > 6. > > Katim S Touray > 7. > > Stuart Hamilton > 8. > > Mawaki Chango > 9. > > Nnenna Nwakanma > > > Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting > clarification as to what specifically they are volunteering for NomCom or > MAG > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 13 23:45:30 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:45:30 +0800 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [7 more hours to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <85E45BD9357344739AD2B4E6E7CA1851@Toshiba> Message-ID: <5284556A.1030209@ciroap.org> It's a bit mischievous, but I would suggest we forward our list of nominees to be forwarded with a note listing those who have never rotated off the MAG since 2006, and suggesting that it would be appropriate that they be given first priority for rotation this time. In no particular order these are: Chris Disspain (auDA) Theresa Swineheart (Verizon) Nii Quaynor (ISOC) Raul Echeberría (LACNIC) -- *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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 14 00:07:47 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:07:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [7 more hours to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <85E45BD9357344739AD2B4E6E7CA1851@Toshiba> Message-ID: <355763A6-3333-45ED-AE39-5822BE74B92A@glocom.ac.jp> I remember a comment that the rotation would be about one third of the MAG each year. But I don't think there's any formal confirmation of that anywhere (perhaps is a MAG meeting note?) My maths appalling. Does that mean those appointed in 2011 would now be rotating out? Adam On Nov 14, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Ian, > > This is an excerpt from what Adam sent the IGC in relation to the matter: > > Starts: > > Text of Wu Hongbo's letter about renewal below. > > Current MAG members can re-submit. > > Is a little unclear, does it mean they must re-submit, and if they don't will be assumed not interested? > > Adam > > > > > MAG Renewal 2014 > > The Internet Governance Forum's Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) has been instrumental in planning the programme of the annual IGF meetings. > > We would like to express our gratitude to all past and present members of MAG who have donated their time, effort and valuable guidance in ensuring the smooth running of the IGF. > > On behalf of the United Nations Secretary-General, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) requests nominations from all stakeholder groups, according to the established principles and practices of MAG on the rotation and selection of its members. Governments, the private sector, civil society, and technical community should submit names of candidates from developed and developing countries as well as from economies in transition. Successful nominees will become part of MAG for a period of one year and will contribute to the multi-stakeholder consultation process, bringing the perspectives of their respective groups on Internet governance. Group nominees should be members who have actively participated in IGF meetings and activities in the past. As in previous years, stakeholder groups can resubmit the names of current MAG members for re-election and are expected to publicize the selection and nomination process. > > Please submit the names of nominees to the IGF Secretariat by 1 December 2013 via email:magrenewal2014 at intgovforum.org, using the attached submission template. The aim is to rotate one third of MAG members. > > Selection and Operation Principles: > > (i) MAG members are selected to achieve a balance among all stakeholder groups, while retaining regional and gender representation, according to established procedures; > > (ii) All MAG members serve in their personal capacity but are expected to have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups; > > (iii) The main task of MAG is to provide advice on the programme and main themes of the next meeting of the IGF; > > (iv) MAG members are expected to attend two to three MAG meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, in addition to the annual IGF meeting. They should participate actively in the preparatory process throughout the year, through engagement in the online multilateral dialogue among MAG members; > > (v) MAG meetings are open to Intergovernmental organizations. > > > Thank you and I look forward to the continued success of the Internet Governance Forum. > > Ends > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Sala, > > it is not clear to me whether current members of the MAG need to put their name forward for re-endorsement by IGF. Can that be clarified? > > Also –given this was not clear to many of us and there are only a few hours remaining during which time these MAG members may not check this list, I would suggest that the incoming MAG needs to have the flexibility to approach current MAG members and clarify their intentions. > > Ian Peter > > > > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:52 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [7 more hours to Go] URGENT > > Dear All, > > Many thanks to those who have boldly put their names forward for the IGC MAG Nominees. We would like to urge those of you who are still double minded, to sieze the moment and take advantage of the remaining 7 hours to put forward a name for the list of IGC MAG Nominees. For those nominating, please get the consent of those you are nominating to ensure a seamless process. > > Can some more women put their names forward. I love our men but we also need to have some women in the mix - please! By the way coordinators don't have a say in the selection as this will be purely a selection by the NomCom. > > This is an update of the names received so far. > > > Volunteers > for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] > Feel free to nominate people. > > • > Asif > Kabani > > • > Rudi > Vansnick > > • > Sonigitu > Ekpe > > • > Imran > Ahmed Shah > > • > Fouad > Bajwa > > • > Katim > S Touray > > • > Stuart > Hamilton > > • > Mawaki > Chango > > • > Nnenna > Nwakanma > > > Note: > Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification > as to what specifically they are volunteering for NomCom or MAG > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Nov 13 23:00:59 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:30:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 13 November 2013 08:55 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > More from the field: > > Brazilian government (or the national steering committee coordinating > the summit) have a meeting today afternoon with the technical > community (Icann and Isoc at least) to coordinate 0.o and shall > release more info about the Summit soon. I've just written an email to > the national steering committee requesting more info and inclusiveness > for the liasons. From civil society, only Glaser (cgi.br > ), and maybe Carlos (?), will be there. > > Also, Minister of Communications, Paulo Bernardo is going for the > first time to Icann and have a 45min slot in the program (attached). > > Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter > nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not > representatives, for International Civil Society for information > regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job here. A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that global civil society would want to use this mechanism to coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At least if they werent invited we could have protested... It is apparent that in some way Brazil gov is going into this in a kind of bilateral mode with the technical community. Let various coordinators. form IGC, BB, IRP and if needed NCUC simply write out a letter to the above intent and purpose. Dont even need to share it with the whole group and take its acceptance it we are only mentioning these two things (1) fact that CS wants independent presence and role, and (2) names of the 4 liasons. Preferably the letter shd go *today*. (I remember that when the letter was being drafted the last time, we got into this argument of what does 'independent' means for a CS role... and the needed text could not go in. Need to keep things within contexts in our discussions I think ) parminder > > best > > joana > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 14 00:29:34 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:29:34 +0900 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [7 more hours to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear list, I am currently serving on MAG for the second year, and am willing to continue for another year if allowed. I assume I would be reappointed, hopefully. Well, I am not sure how this is handled, but hope the CS IGC also endorse existing MAG members in addition to the new ones to replace the old ones. izumi 2013/11/14 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Dear All, > > Many thanks to those who have boldly put their names forward for the IGC > MAG Nominees. We would like to urge those of you who are still double > minded, to sieze the moment and take advantage of the remaining 7 hours to > put forward a name for the list of IGC MAG Nominees. For those nominating, > please get the consent of those you are nominating to ensure a seamless > process. > > Can some more women put their names forward. I love our men but we also > need to have some women in the mix - please! By the way coordinators don't > have a say in the selection as this will be purely a selection by the > NomCom. > > This is an update of the names received so far. > > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > 1. > > Asif Kabani > 2. > > Rudi Vansnick > 3. > > Sonigitu Ekpe > 4. > > Imran Ahmed Shah > 5. > > Fouad Bajwa > 6. > > Katim S Touray > 7. > > Stuart Hamilton > 8. > > Mawaki Chango > 9. > > Nnenna Nwakanma > > > Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting > clarification as to what specifically they are volunteering for NomCom or > MAG > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 fatimacambronero at gmail.com Thu Nov 14 00:49:26 2013 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 03:49:26 -0200 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [7 more hours to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sala, all, Assuming that current members of the MAG need to put our names forward for re-endorsement, I would like to express my interest to serving for the new period as MAG member. I am women, lawyer, living in Cordoba, Argentina (GRULAC) and I belong to a civil society organization that works in the advocacy of the Internet end-users of my region. I also work in the capacity building issues at ISOC (NGL Program) and DiploFoundation. I do not receive funding from any government or any private company; I am not employed by any of them. I have assumed the MAG role the last May when the annual process for the IGF had already started. I couldn't attend to the May meeting but I have participated remotely. As MAG member I have been part of the Capacity Building Team, previous to the IGF and in the IGF itself. This IGF has been a great experience for me. I would like to keep learning and I would like to participate in the MAG role from the beginning of this process in order to make better contributions. As MAG member, this year I have been working with several civil society organizations from Latin America. For next year I would like to improve the communication with all the Latin American and Caribbean civil society organizations involved in the IGF to ensure that they have a voice into the MAG and in the IGF. I also plan to continue working in the Capacity Building Team for next year. I would like to ask the support of the IGC to re-submit my nomination as MAG member. Please, let me know if you need some additional information. Thanks in advance. Best Regards, Fatima Cambronero 2013/11/14 Izumi AIZU > Dear list, > > I am currently serving on MAG for the second year, and am willing to > continue for another year if allowed. I assume I would be reappointed, > hopefully. > > Well, I am not sure how this is handled, but hope the CS IGC also endorse > existing MAG members in addition to the new ones to replace the old ones. > > izumi > > > > > > 2013/11/14 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > >> Dear All, >> >> Many thanks to those who have boldly put their names forward for the IGC >> MAG Nominees. We would like to urge those of you who are still double >> minded, to sieze the moment and take advantage of the remaining 7 hours to >> put forward a name for the list of IGC MAG Nominees. For those nominating, >> please get the consent of those you are nominating to ensure a seamless >> process. >> >> Can some more women put their names forward. I love our men but we also >> need to have some women in the mix - please! By the way coordinators don't >> have a say in the selection as this will be purely a selection by the >> NomCom. >> >> This is an update of the names received so far. >> >> >> Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse >> and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >> >> 1. >> >> Asif Kabani >> 2. >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> 3. >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe >> 4. >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> 5. >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> 6. >> >> Katim S Touray >> 7. >> >> Stuart Hamilton >> 8. >> >> Mawaki Chango >> 9. >> >> Nnenna Nwakanma >> >> >> Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting >> clarification as to what specifically they are volunteering for NomCom or >> MAG >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:* http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 14 00:58:48 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:28:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [7 more hours to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <09DFA07C-2EA6-442B-980C-80D547003015@hserus.net> Thank you for volunteering and I am glad to support your candidature, Fatima, and Izumi san. --srs (iPad) > On 14-Nov-2013, at 11:19, Fatima Cambronero wrote: > > > > Dear Sala, all, > > > > Assuming that current members of the MAG need to put our names forward for re-endorsement, I would like to express my interest to serving for the new period as MAG member. > > > > I am women, lawyer, living in Cordoba, Argentina (GRULAC) and I belong to a civil society organization that works in the advocacy of the Internet end-users of my region. I also work in the capacity building issues at ISOC (NGL Program) and DiploFoundation. > > > > I do not receive funding from any government or any private company; I am not employed by any of them. > > > > I have assumed the MAG role the last May when the annual process for the IGF had already started. > > I couldn't attend to the May meeting but I have participated remotely. > > > > As MAG member I have been part of the Capacity Building Team, previous to the IGF and in the IGF itself. This IGF has been a great experience for me. I would like to keep learning and I would like to participate in the MAG role from the beginning of this process in order to make better contributions. > > As MAG member, this year I have been working with several civil society organizations from Latin America. For next year I would like to improve the communication with all the Latin American and Caribbean civil society organizations involved in the IGF to ensure that they have a voice into the MAG and in the IGF. I also plan to continue working in the Capacity Building Team for next year. > > > > I would like to ask the support of the IGC to re-submit my nomination as MAG member. > > Please, let me know if you need some additional information. > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > Best Regards, > > Fatima Cambronero > > > > 2013/11/14 Izumi AIZU >> Dear list, >> >> I am currently serving on MAG for the second year, and am willing to continue for another year if allowed. I assume I would be reappointed, hopefully. >> >> Well, I am not sure how this is handled, but hope the CS IGC also endorse existing MAG members in addition to the new ones to replace the old ones. >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> >> >> 2013/11/14 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Many thanks to those who have boldly put their names forward for the IGC MAG Nominees. We would like to urge those of you who are still double minded, to sieze the moment and take advantage of the remaining 7 hours to put forward a name for the list of IGC MAG Nominees. For those nominating, please get the consent of those you are nominating to ensure a seamless process. >>> >>> Can some more women put their names forward. I love our men but we also need to have some women in the mix - please! By the way coordinators don't have a say in the selection as this will be purely a selection by the NomCom. >>> >>> This is an update of the names received so far. >>> >>> >>> Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>> Asif Kabani >>> Rudi Vansnick >>> Sonigitu Ekpe >>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> Katim S Touray >>> Stuart Hamilton >>> Mawaki Chango >>> Nnenna Nwakanma >>> >>> Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification as to what specifically they are volunteering for NomCom or MAG >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> www.anr.org >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > Fatima Cambronero > Abogada-Argentina > > Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 > Twitter: @facambronero > Skype: fatima.cambronero > > Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions: https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions: http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ > > Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): http://www.internetsociety.org/ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Nov 14 01:43:55 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:43:55 +1300 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [7 more hours to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: <09DFA07C-2EA6-442B-980C-80D547003015@hserus.net> References: <09DFA07C-2EA6-442B-980C-80D547003015@hserus.net> Message-ID: <45ABDFBE-EFD1-4589-9BAA-59AE2B03B33E@gmail.com> Dear Izumi and Fatima, Thank you, this is noted and will go into the record. Many thanks, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Nov 14, 2013, at 6:58 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Thank you for volunteering and I am glad to support your candidature, Fatima, and Izumi san. > > --srs (iPad) > >> On 14-Nov-2013, at 11:19, Fatima Cambronero wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Sala, all, >> >> >> >> Assuming that current members of the MAG need to put our names forward for re-endorsement, I would like to express my interest to serving for the new period as MAG member. >> >> >> >> I am women, lawyer, living in Cordoba, Argentina (GRULAC) and I belong to a civil society organization that works in the advocacy of the Internet end-users of my region. I also work in the capacity building issues at ISOC (NGL Program) and DiploFoundation. >> >> >> >> I do not receive funding from any government or any private company; I am not employed by any of them. >> >> >> >> I have assumed the MAG role the last May when the annual process for the IGF had already started. >> >> I couldn't attend to the May meeting but I have participated remotely. >> >> >> >> As MAG member I have been part of the Capacity Building Team, previous to the IGF and in the IGF itself. This IGF has been a great experience for me. I would like to keep learning and I would like to participate in the MAG role from the beginning of this process in order to make better contributions. >> >> As MAG member, this year I have been working with several civil society organizations from Latin America. For next year I would like to improve the communication with all the Latin American and Caribbean civil society organizations involved in the IGF to ensure that they have a voice into the MAG and in the IGF. I also plan to continue working in the Capacity Building Team for next year. >> >> >> >> I would like to ask the support of the IGC to re-submit my nomination as MAG member. >> >> Please, let me know if you need some additional information. >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Fatima Cambronero >> >> >> >> 2013/11/14 Izumi AIZU >>> Dear list, >>> >>> I am currently serving on MAG for the second year, and am willing to continue for another year if allowed. I assume I would be reappointed, hopefully. >>> >>> Well, I am not sure how this is handled, but hope the CS IGC also endorse existing MAG members in addition to the new ones to replace the old ones. >>> >>> izumi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/11/14 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Many thanks to those who have boldly put their names forward for the IGC MAG Nominees. We would like to urge those of you who are still double minded, to sieze the moment and take advantage of the remaining 7 hours to put forward a name for the list of IGC MAG Nominees. For those nominating, please get the consent of those you are nominating to ensure a seamless process. >>>> >>>> Can some more women put their names forward. I love our men but we also need to have some women in the mix - please! By the way coordinators don't have a say in the selection as this will be purely a selection by the NomCom. >>>> >>>> This is an update of the names received so far. >>>> >>>> >>>> Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>>> Asif Kabani >>>> Rudi Vansnick >>>> Sonigitu Ekpe >>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>> Fouad Bajwa >>>> Katim S Touray >>>> Stuart Hamilton >>>> Mawaki Chango >>>> Nnenna Nwakanma >>>> >>>> Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification as to what specifically they are volunteering for NomCom or MAG >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >> Izumi Aizu << >>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>> Japan >>> www.anr.org >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> -- >> Fatima Cambronero >> Abogada-Argentina >> >> Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 >> Twitter: @facambronero >> Skype: fatima.cambronero >> >> Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions: https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >> >> Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions: http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ >> >> Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): http://www.internetsociety.org/ >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Nov 14 02:21:04 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:21:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit In-Reply-To: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: >> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter >> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not >> representatives, for International Civil Society for information >> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job here. > > > A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that global > civil society would want to use this mechanism to coordinate its role > in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go through 1net or any other > tehcnical community led interface is of the highest priority at this > stage. Dont want to get into I-told-you-so mode, but I have been > insisting that we did that first and in clear terms since our earliest > meetings in Bali. If we have got such a communication through in clear > terms, maybe our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. > At least if they werent invited we could have protested... Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps -- *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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Thu Nov 14 02:25:21 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:25:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] VIDEO : Is There A Third Way For The Internet: Neither The US Nor The UN But Independence? Message-ID: This event has spawned ongoing conversations on multiple mailing lists. This is our updated archive, which includes YouTube, plus downloadable video and audio. If you are yet to view I recommend at least you take in Eli Noam's opening remarks on the theme "Internet, go disrupt yourself!" Anyone who pitches in on the AMARA transcription effort is a star. joly posted: "On Tuesday November 12 2013 at 12:00pm EST the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) hosted an e-conference on Internet Governance titled: “Is There A Third Way For The Internet: Neither The US Nor The UN But Independence?” The conference asked t" [image: CITI]On Tuesday November 12 2013 at 12:00pm EST the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) hosted an e-conference on Internet Governance titled: “*Is There A Third Way For The Internet: Neither The US Nor The UN But Independence?*”The conference asked the question "Are there models of internet governance that establish internet independence from the US without the UN or other governments expanding their influence or control? What are their advantages and disadvantages?” Speakers included:*Eli Noam*, Director, CITI; *John Curran*, President and CEO, American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN); *Alejandro Pisanty*, Director of Computing Academic Services, National Autonomous University of Mexico, ICANN Board Member; *Fred Goldstein*, Interisle Consulting Group, Senior Member of the IEEE; *Milton Mueller*, Professor, Syracuse University; *Lorenzo Pupillo*, Economist, Telecom Italia; *Fred Golstein*, Interisle Consulting Group, Senior member of the IEEE; and *Robert Atkinson* of CITI. Moderator was *Dave Burstein* of ISOC-NY. The conference was relayed via the Internet Society Chapters Webcast Channeland is archived below. *View on YouTube*: http://youtu.be/ve9bTQvGmH8 *Transcribe on AMARA*: http://www.amara.org/en/videos/p04RmtFRgkPm/ *Download*: video | audio *Twitter*: none but, say, #thirdway Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6092 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 14 03:30:40 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:30:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [7 more hours to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: <45ABDFBE-EFD1-4589-9BAA-59AE2B03B33E@gmail.com> References: <09DFA07C-2EA6-442B-980C-80D547003015@hserus.net> <45ABDFBE-EFD1-4589-9BAA-59AE2B03B33E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <92E496C6-EB24-4952-94FA-56F0A22EEB90@glocom.ac.jp> Hi, When we submit the names from the NomCom, perhaps add a cover note saying We support the rotation of one third of the MAG each year. We support continuing the terms of current civil society MAG members not up for rotation. Perhaps not easy when we don't know who they are :-) Adam On Nov 14, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Izumi and Fatima, > > Thank you, this is noted and will go into the record. > > Many thanks, > Sala > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Nov 14, 2013, at 6:58 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Thank you for volunteering and I am glad to support your candidature, Fatima, and Izumi san. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 14-Nov-2013, at 11:19, Fatima Cambronero wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Dear Sala, all, >>> >>> >>> >>> Assuming that current members of the MAG need to put our names forward for re-endorsement, I would like to express my interest to serving for the new period as MAG member. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am women, lawyer, living in Cordoba, Argentina (GRULAC) and I belong to a civil society organization that works in the advocacy of the Internet end-users of my region. I also work in the capacity building issues at ISOC (NGL Program) and DiploFoundation. >>> >>> >>> >>> I do not receive funding from any government or any private company; I am not employed by any of them. >>> >>> >>> >>> I have assumed the MAG role the last May when the annual process for the IGF had already started. >>> >>> I couldn't attend to the May meeting but I have participated remotely. >>> >>> >>> >>> As MAG member I have been part of the Capacity Building Team, previous to the IGF and in the IGF itself. This IGF has been a great experience for me. I would like to keep learning and I would like to participate in the MAG role from the beginning of this process in order to make better contributions. >>> >>> As MAG member, this year I have been working with several civil society organizations from Latin America. For next year I would like to improve the communication with all the Latin American and Caribbean civil society organizations involved in the IGF to ensure that they have a voice into the MAG and in the IGF. I also plan to continue working in the Capacity Building Team for next year. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I would like to ask the support of the IGC to re-submit my nomination as MAG member. >>> >>> Please, let me know if you need some additional information. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks in advance. >>> >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Fatima Cambronero >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/11/14 Izumi AIZU >>> Dear list, >>> >>> I am currently serving on MAG for the second year, and am willing to continue for another year if allowed. I assume I would be reappointed, hopefully. >>> >>> Well, I am not sure how this is handled, but hope the CS IGC also endorse existing MAG members in addition to the new ones to replace the old ones. >>> >>> izumi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/11/14 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Many thanks to those who have boldly put their names forward for the IGC MAG Nominees. We would like to urge those of you who are still double minded, to sieze the moment and take advantage of the remaining 7 hours to put forward a name for the list of IGC MAG Nominees. For those nominating, please get the consent of those you are nominating to ensure a seamless process. >>> >>> Can some more women put their names forward. I love our men but we also need to have some women in the mix - please! By the way coordinators don't have a say in the selection as this will be purely a selection by the NomCom. >>> >>> This is an update of the names received so far. >>> >>> >>> Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>> • Asif Kabani >>> • Rudi Vansnick >>> • Sonigitu Ekpe >>> • Imran Ahmed Shah >>> • Fouad Bajwa >>> • Katim S Touray >>> • Stuart Hamilton >>> • Mawaki Chango >>> • Nnenna Nwakanma >>> >>> Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification as to what specifically they are volunteering for NomCom or MAG >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >> Izumi Aizu << >>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>> Japan >>> www.anr.org >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Fatima Cambronero >>> Abogada-Argentina >>> >>> Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 >>> Twitter: @facambronero >>> Skype: fatima.cambronero >>> >>> Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions: https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >>> >>> Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions: http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ >>> >>> Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): http://www.internetsociety.org/ >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 14 03:57:31 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:57:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit In-Reply-To: <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <7DF51D8D-4881-46DA-A6DD-EE86A0998185@glocom.ac.jp> Let's just wait and see what Brazil govt has to say about the summit/conference, hopefully today or soon. Then decide how to engage. Adam On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: >>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not representatives, for International Civil Society for information regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job here. >> >> >> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that global civil society would want to use this mechanism to coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At least if they werent invited we could have protested... > > Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps > > -- > 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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 14 04:33:09 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 06:33:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <52841C45.7050706@itforchange.net> <26712674-2DDA-4677-B7CD-B1CC52154948@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20131114093307.GA6920@tarvainen.info> +1 for Nnenna! Tapani On Nov 14 12:34, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > > I'd like to nominate Nnenna Nwakanma as a candidate for the MAG. Nnenna has agreed. Hope not too late. > > 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 ca at cafonso.ca Thu Nov 14 04:38:39 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 07:38:39 -0200 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [7 more hours to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: <355763A6-3333-45ED-AE39-5822BE74B92A@glocom.ac.jp> References: <85E45BD9357344739AD2B4E6E7CA1851@Toshiba> <355763A6-3333-45ED-AE39-5822BE74B92A@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <52849A1F.10202@cafonso.ca> Not sure this will include all "qualified" to rotate. Some are "regulars" which for some reason the UN does not wish them out. --c.a. On 11/14/2013 03:07 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > I remember a comment that the rotation would be about one third of the MAG each year. But I don't think there's any formal confirmation of that anywhere (perhaps is a MAG meeting note?) > > My maths appalling. Does that mean those appointed in 2011 would now be rotating out? > > Adam > > > > On Nov 14, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Dear Ian, >> >> This is an excerpt from what Adam sent the IGC in relation to the matter: >> >> Starts: >> >> Text of Wu Hongbo's letter about renewal below. >> >> Current MAG members can re-submit. >> >> Is a little unclear, does it mean they must re-submit, and if they don't will be assumed not interested? >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> MAG Renewal 2014 >> >> The Internet Governance Forum's Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) has been instrumental in planning the programme of the annual IGF meetings. >> >> We would like to express our gratitude to all past and present members of MAG who have donated their time, effort and valuable guidance in ensuring the smooth running of the IGF. >> >> On behalf of the United Nations Secretary-General, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) requests nominations from all stakeholder groups, according to the established principles and practices of MAG on the rotation and selection of its members. Governments, the private sector, civil society, and technical community should submit names of candidates from developed and developing countries as well as from economies in transition. Successful nominees will become part of MAG for a period of one year and will contribute to the multi-stakeholder consultation process, bringing the perspectives of their respective groups on Internet governance. Group nominees should be members who have actively participated in IGF meetings and activities in the past. As in previous years, stakeholder groups can resubmit the names of current MAG members for re-election and are expected to publicize the selection and nomination process. >> >> Please submit the names of nominees to the IGF Secretariat by 1 December 2013 via email:magrenewal2014 at intgovforum.org, using the attached submission template. The aim is to rotate one third of MAG members. >> >> Selection and Operation Principles: >> >> (i) MAG members are selected to achieve a balance among all stakeholder groups, while retaining regional and gender representation, according to established procedures; >> >> (ii) All MAG members serve in their personal capacity but are expected to have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups; >> >> (iii) The main task of MAG is to provide advice on the programme and main themes of the next meeting of the IGF; >> >> (iv) MAG members are expected to attend two to three MAG meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, in addition to the annual IGF meeting. They should participate actively in the preparatory process throughout the year, through engagement in the online multilateral dialogue among MAG members; >> >> (v) MAG meetings are open to Intergovernmental organizations. >> >> >> Thank you and I look forward to the continued success of the Internet Governance Forum. >> >> Ends >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Hi Sala, >> >> it is not clear to me whether current members of the MAG need to put their name forward for re-endorsement by IGF. Can that be clarified? >> >> Also –given this was not clear to many of us and there are only a few hours remaining during which time these MAG members may not check this list, I would suggest that the incoming MAG needs to have the flexibility to approach current MAG members and clarify their intentions. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:52 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [7 more hours to Go] URGENT >> >> Dear All, >> >> Many thanks to those who have boldly put their names forward for the IGC MAG Nominees. We would like to urge those of you who are still double minded, to sieze the moment and take advantage of the remaining 7 hours to put forward a name for the list of IGC MAG Nominees. For those nominating, please get the consent of those you are nominating to ensure a seamless process. >> >> Can some more women put their names forward. I love our men but we also need to have some women in the mix - please! By the way coordinators don't have a say in the selection as this will be purely a selection by the NomCom. >> >> This is an update of the names received so far. >> >> >> Volunteers >> for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] >> Feel free to nominate people. >> >> • >> Asif >> Kabani >> >> • >> Rudi >> Vansnick >> >> • >> Sonigitu >> Ekpe >> >> • >> Imran >> Ahmed Shah >> >> • >> Fouad >> Bajwa >> >> • >> Katim >> S Touray >> >> • >> Stuart >> Hamilton >> >> • >> Mawaki >> Chango >> >> • >> Nnenna >> Nwakanma >> >> >> Note: >> Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification >> as to what specifically they are volunteering for NomCom or MAG >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Nov 14 04:59:40 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:59:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit In-Reply-To: <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20131114105940.78057396@quill> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: > >> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter > >> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not > >> representatives, for International Civil Society for information > >> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job > >> here. > > > > > > A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that global > > civil society would want to use this mechanism to coordinate its > > role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go through 1net or any > > other tehcnical community led interface is of the highest priority > > at this stage. Dont want to get into I-told-you-so mode, but I have > > been insisting that we did that first and in clear terms since our > > earliest meetings in Bali. If we have got such a communication > > through in clear terms, maybe our four reps would have been there > > at the above meeting. At least if they werent invited we could have > > protested... > > Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps Looks good to me. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 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 Nov 14 04:59:37 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:59:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [7 more hours to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: <355763A6-3333-45ED-AE39-5822BE74B92A@glocom.ac.jp> References: <85E45BD9357344739AD2B4E6E7CA1851@Toshiba> <355763A6-3333-45ED-AE39-5822BE74B92A@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: In message <355763A6-3333-45ED-AE39-5822BE74B92A at glocom.ac.jp>, at 14:07:47 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Adam Peake writes >I remember a comment that the rotation would be about one third of the >MAG each year. But I don't think there's any formal confirmation of >that anywhere (perhaps is a MAG meeting note?) I don't have the proof immediately to hand, but I'm sure that the one-third has been part of the process from the start. >My maths appalling. Does that mean those appointed in 2011 would now be rotating out? Not because of the year they were appointed. In the early years it was never clear if the 1/3 rotation would mean that everyone would be on a maximum tenure of three years (and the corollary, that everyone would stay for three years if they wanted to, before being automatically rotated off). This is the scheme commonly used for non-executive directors, trustees and so on in the bricks and mortar world. But as the years rolled by, it became apparent that there was no automatic "retirement" due to length of service or automatic tenure for three years, and all it meant was that 1/3 of the MAG each year (or in practice a little over) would be new "new faces". -- 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 Thu Nov 14 05:02:32 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:32:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit In-Reply-To: <20131114105940.78057396@quill> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> Message-ID: <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial distinction between the technical community and civil society is counterproductive in the long run. --srs (iPad) > On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: >>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter >>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not >>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information >>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job >>>> here. >>> >>> >>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that global >>> civil society would want to use this mechanism to coordinate its >>> role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go through 1net or any >>> other tehcnical community led interface is of the highest priority >>> at this stage. Dont want to get into I-told-you-so mode, but I have >>> been insisting that we did that first and in clear terms since our >>> earliest meetings in Bali. If we have got such a communication >>> through in clear terms, maybe our four reps would have been there >>> at the above meeting. At least if they werent invited we could have >>> protested... >> >> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps > > Looks good to me. > > Greetings, > Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Nov 14 05:54:21 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:54:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons In-Reply-To: <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20131114115421.2478f561@quill> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the liaisons? If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed to express among the IGC members who participated in person in the relevant discussions in Bali. The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter, such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed if desired.) But we should certainly discuss the matter first. Greetings, Norbert Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial > distinction between the technical community and civil society is > counterproductive in the long run. > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > >> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: > >>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter > >>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not > >>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information > >>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job > >>>> here. > >>> > >>> > >>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that > >>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to > >>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go > >>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of > >>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into > >>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that > >>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If > >>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe > >>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At > >>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... > >> > >> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps > > > > Looks good to me. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 14 06:04:44 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:04:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons In-Reply-To: <20131114115421.2478f561@quill> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> <20131114115421.2478f561@quill> Message-ID: <08C399D9-7184-466C-A012-E32F08DEAFDD@glocom.ac.jp> An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time now. Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's plans are clear. Adam On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled > with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the > liaisons? > > If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, > and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. > > There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed to > express among the IGC members who participated in person in the > relevant discussions in Bali. > > The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC > Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online > polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority > of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter, > such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the > coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough > consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed if > desired.) > > But we should certainly discuss the matter first. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial >> distinction between the technical community and civil society is >> counterproductive in the long run. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: >>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter >>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not >>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information >>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job >>>>>> here. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that >>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to >>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go >>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of >>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into >>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that >>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If >>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe >>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At >>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... >>>> >>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps >>> >>> Looks good to me. >>> >>> 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 ca at cafonso.ca Thu Nov 14 06:09:47 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:09:47 -0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons In-Reply-To: <08C399D9-7184-466C-A012-E32F08DEAFDD@glocom.ac.jp> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> <20131114115421.2478f561@quill> <08C399D9-7184-466C-A012-E32F08DEAFDD@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <5284AF7B.8000903@cafonso.ca> Good, Adam. As we say here in Rio: "muita calma nessa hora!" :) []s fraternos --c.a. On 11/14/2013 09:04 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time now. Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's plans are clear. > > Adam > > On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled >> with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the >> liaisons? >> >> If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, >> and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. >> >> There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed to >> express among the IGC members who participated in person in the >> relevant discussions in Bali. >> >> The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC >> Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online >> polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority >> of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter, >> such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the >> coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough >> consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed if >> desired.) >> >> But we should certainly discuss the matter first. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial >>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is >>> counterproductive in the long run. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> >>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: >>>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter >>>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not >>>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information >>>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job >>>>>>> here. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that >>>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to >>>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go >>>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of >>>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into >>>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that >>>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If >>>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe >>>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At >>>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... >>>>> >>>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps >>>> >>>> Looks good to me. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Nov 14 06:14:27 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:14:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons In-Reply-To: <08C399D9-7184-466C-A012-E32F08DEAFDD@glocom.ac.jp> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> <20131114115421.2478f561@quill> <08C399D9-7184-466C-A012-E32F08DEAFDD@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <20131114121427.249e489a@quill> Adam Peake wrote: > An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time > now. Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's > plans are clear. [with IGC coordinator hat on] ACK. I'm pretty sure that even if we go forward as quickly as reasonably possible with resolving that opposition "on principle" against the appointment of four civil society liaisons through an informal in-person process in Bali, that resolution process will in any case not be complete before we have news from the Brazilian government. Greetings, Norbert > On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled > > with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the > > liaisons? > > > > If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, > > and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. > > > > There was very strong support for what this letter has been > > proposed to express among the IGC members who participated in > > person in the relevant discussions in Bali. > > > > The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC > > Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online > > polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming > > majority of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to > > the Charter, such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 > > hours, then the coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the > > result as "rough consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision > > that can be appealed if desired.) > > > > But we should certainly discuss the matter first. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > >> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial > >> distinction between the technical community and civil society is > >> counterproductive in the long run. > >> > >> --srs (iPad) > >> > >>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>> > >>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: > >>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal > >>>>>> letter nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not > >>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for > >>>>>> information regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate > >>>>>> and help our job here. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that > >>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to > >>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go > >>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is > >>>>> of the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into > >>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that > >>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If > >>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe > >>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At > >>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... > >>>> > >>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps > >>> > >>> Looks good to me. > >>> > >>> Greetings, > >>> Norbert > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Nov 14 07:21:29 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:21:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] NomCom constituted (was Re: UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees...) In-Reply-To: <20131113232906.7516cc31@quill> References: <20131113194236.6a43852f@quill> <20131113232906.7516cc31@quill> Message-ID: <20131114132129.1eaeb2f3@quill> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Dear all The NomCom is now formally constituted, with Ian Peter as non-voting chair. Many thanks to Ian for his willingness to serve in this role. The NomCom is fully authorized to select nominees in behalf of the IGC; if an opportunity arises to coordinate such selection with the selection processes of other civil society networks, there is no reason why the IGC NomCom couldn't participate in such coordinated selection. The NomCom can be reached at nomcom-mag-2014 at lists.igcaucus.org Further information on the NomCom process is available at http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process Greetings, Norbert Am Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:29:06 +0100 schrieb Norbert Bollow : > Norbert Bollow wrote, before the UK national lottery > draw took place: > > > In view of the short timeframe, I will use TODAY's UK national > > lottery draw as random seed. [..] (the six "ball numbers" and then, > > entered separately, the number of the "bonus ball"). Five voting > > NomCom members and then three reserves will be selected in this > > manner. > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > The six "ball numbers" of today's draw were 4 6 15 23 36 44 and the > "bonus ball" was 11, resulting in the following random selections: > > Selected as voting nomcom members: > > * 6. Kerry Brown > * 24. JFC Morfin > * 19. Shaila Rao Mistry > * 15. David Cake > * 20. Deirdre Williams > > Reserves: > > 1st reserve: 5. Jeremy Hunsinger > 2nd reserve: 9. Ginger Paque > 3rd reserve: 17. Chun Eung Hwi > > Again, thank you all for volunteering, and congratulations to the > winners of the lottery. :-) > > The next step is the appointment of the non-voting chair. According to > the IGC Charter, this is to be done by the coordinators "with the > advice of the IGC membership". > > In view of the situation with the tight timeline, Sala's and my > initial thoughts are to look for someone from the list of volunteers > (who was not randomly selected as voting member) with nomcom > experience, as those who have volunteered have already expressed > willingness to give up time which is not easy at this time of the > year with holidays and budget preparation deadlines etc. > > In any case, since the charter says "with the advice of the IGC > membership", there is a need to provide an opportunity for such > advice. However, in view of the tight timeline, we can assure that > such advice will be taken into account only if it received by > Thursday Nov 14 noon UTC. If you wish to provide advice, please try > to post your thoughts before that time. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > P.S. Again, the list of nomcom volunteers was: > > > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > > > > > 1. Adam Peake > > > 2. Ian Peter > > > 3. Kossi Amessinou > > > 4. Angela Daly > > > 5. Jeremy Hunsinger > > > 6. Kerry Brown > > > 7. Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > > 8. Erick Iriarte Ahon > > > 9. Ginger Paque > > > 10. Jose F Callo Romero > > > 11. Suresh Ramasubramanium > > > 12. Badouin Schombe > > > 13. Robin Gross > > > 14. Tapani Tarvainen > > > 15. David Cake > > > 16. Jeremy Malcolm > > > 17. Chun Eung Hwi > > > 18. Antonio Medina Gomez > > > 19. Shaila Rao Mistry > > > 20. Deirdre Williams > > > 21. Devon Blake > > > 22. José Félix Arias Ynche > > > 23. Michael Gurstein > > > 24. JFC Morfin > > > 25. Mwendwa Kivuva > > > 26. Dave Kissoondoyal > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Nov 14 09:00:23 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:30:23 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC In-Reply-To: References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> <5282AE07.5000308@apc.org> Message-ID: Like Adam, I too was quite disappointed to hear Parminder argue that the Correspondence Group should not be open to all stakeholders. It was particularly jarring seeing that the bulk of the preparation during the meeting for the work that the CG will be taking up was actually done by two civil society/technical community observers who were physically present at the meeting. There was thus already a precedent for involvement of the larger community in this work. To hear a CS representative argue in favour of that being rolled back was quite unfortunate. Best, Anja On 13 November 2013 19:28, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Joy. > > Disappointing to see Parminder partnering with Iran and Saudi Arabia (what > a trio...) "called for an holistic approach to internet governance as a > means to fully implement enhanced cooperation, and for this to be > materialised in a new centralised global inter-governmental mechanism". > > Parminder, I hope when you present these ill conceived notions you inform > the WG that they are very much your own positions and not widely supported > by civil society. They get no support when you mention on the IGC or > bestbits lists. > > The live transcription was had to follow --in all uppercase letters > rolling down the screen-- but it seems you tried to limit participation in > the Correspondence Group mentioned in the summary Joy provided (to provide > "analysis of issues/existing mechanisms/on-going activities") while the > rest of civil society and others successfully kept it open to all. Is that > right, you argued for a closed group? > > On our mailing lists you are full of talk if transparency and openness and > then when in more closed surroundings you are actually a man of government > and control. Not good. > > Adam > > > On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:39 AM, joy wrote: > > > Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general > > note on the summary of the meeting: http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/ > > > > regards > > > > Joy Liddicoat > > > > On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Dear people, > >> > >> Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the > >> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting > >> just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest > >> edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in > >> Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. > >> > >> In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the > >> advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this > >> phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always > >> taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to > >> suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet. > >> > >> Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in > >> PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed > >> -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has > >> not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such, > >> and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet > >> requires periodic revisions. > >> > >> The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF > >> should follow, as described in its paragraph 72: > >> > >> ------ > >> 72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, > >> to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum > >> for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance > >> Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to: > >> > >> a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet > >> governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, > >> stability and development of the Internet. > >> > >> b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different > >> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and > >> discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body. > >> > >> c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other > >> institutions on matters under their purview. > >> > >> d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in > >> this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific > >> and technical communities. > >> > >> e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the > >> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world. > >> > >> f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing > >> and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from > >> developing countries. > >> > >> g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant > >> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > recommendations. > >> > >> h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing > >> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. > >> > >> i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS > >> principles in Internet governance processes. > >> > >> j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources. > >> > >> k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse > >> of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users. > >> > >> l) Publish its proceedings. > >> ------ > >> > >> It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF. > >> First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented > >> forum, not merely a sequence of events. > >> > >> Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be > >> generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which > >> have been basically ignored by the UN. > >> > >> The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its > >> mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda > >> have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which > >> is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically > >> on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the > >> expertises needed to carry out this challenge . > >> > >> It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or > >> might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it > >> might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process. > >> > >> As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced > >> cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development > >> (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN > >> General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has > >> revealed some worrying weaknesses . > >> > >> The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the > >> production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There > >> were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil > >> society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the > >> business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing > >> countries. > >> > >> It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including > >> the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the > >> APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of > >> the various views of the working group in relation to themes of > >> cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is > >> attached in PDF] > >> > >> The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal > >> the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis > >> Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet > >> Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively, > >> significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics > >> possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group > >> difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to > >> group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group > >> ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The > >> perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG > >> and the WSIS process is inevitable . > >> > >> One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants > >> are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not > >> necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar > >> to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both > >> the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report. > >> > >> Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this > >> process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate > >> below. > >> > >> A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an > >> interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and > >> possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for > >> easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of > >> the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and > >> consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their > >> suggestions: > >> > >> ------ > >> Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and > >> Observers > >> > >> 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a > >> reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living > >> document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and > >> responsibilities of all participants; > >> > >> 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined > >> by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles > >> were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva > >> Declaration of Principles; > >> > >> 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it > >> and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance; > >> > >> 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended > >> in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75; > >> > >> 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for > >> Enhanced Cooperation; > >> > >> 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms spring into existence organically > >> as they are needed and that there is no need to create new mechanisms > >> in a top down manner; > >> > >> 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand > >> internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking > >> into account, its multi-stakeholder nature; > >> > >> 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda > >> defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation; > >> > >> 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that > >> are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion > >> Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the > >> larger IGF community; > >> > >> 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the recommendations of the CSTD WG on > >> IGF Improvements including its mandate to give advice to the functional > >> Internet governance and management organizations; > >> > >> 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the > >> IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters > >> within their mandates; > >> > >> 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF > >> process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other > >> stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal > >> footing; > >> > >> 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to > >> participate in the IGF. > >> > >> 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all > >> stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and > >> to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced. > >> ------ > >> > >> In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but > >> essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced > >> cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around > >> these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative > >> processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the > >> generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance. > >> > >> On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the > >> governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden: > >> > >> ------ > >> - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of > >> all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet > >> governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative > >> working methods such as remote participation. > >> > >> - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate > >> through capactity building, including but not limited to, training > >> programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing. > >> > >> - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and > >> consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates > >> affordable access for all stakeholders. > >> > >> - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to > >> empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework > >> that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights > >> online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support > >> mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships. > >> ------ > >> > >> At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can > >> help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC. > >> > >> fraternal regards > >> > >> --c.a. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Thu Nov 14 09:03:59 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:03:59 +0700 Subject: [governance] NomCom constituted (was Re: UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees...) In-Reply-To: <20131114132129.1eaeb2f3@quill> References: <20131113194236.6a43852f@quill> <20131113232906.7516cc31@quill> <20131114132129.1eaeb2f3@quill> Message-ID: Dear All, Congratulations to the new NomCom. Great to have among Fellows Ian Peter as non-voting Chair. Once again Congratulations to the winners. Best wishes. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Nov 14, 2013 1:21 PM, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > The NomCom is now formally constituted, with Ian Peter as non-voting > chair. > > Many thanks to Ian for his willingness to serve in this role. > > The NomCom is fully authorized to select nominees in behalf of the > IGC; if an opportunity arises to coordinate such selection with the > selection processes of other civil society networks, there is no > reason why the IGC NomCom couldn't participate in such coordinated > selection. > > The NomCom can be reached at nomcom-mag-2014 at lists.igcaucus.org > > Further information on the NomCom process is available at > http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Am Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:29:06 +0100 > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > > > Norbert Bollow wrote, before the UK national lottery > > draw took place: > > > > > In view of the short timeframe, I will use TODAY's UK national > > > lottery draw as random seed. [..] (the six "ball numbers" and then, > > > entered separately, the number of the "bonus ball"). Five voting > > > NomCom members and then three reserves will be selected in this > > > manner. > > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > The six "ball numbers" of today's draw were 4 6 15 23 36 44 and the > > "bonus ball" was 11, resulting in the following random selections: > > > > Selected as voting nomcom members: > > > > * 6. Kerry Brown > > * 24. JFC Morfin > > * 19. Shaila Rao Mistry > > * 15. David Cake > > * 20. Deirdre Williams > > > > Reserves: > > > > 1st reserve: 5. Jeremy Hunsinger > > 2nd reserve: 9. Ginger Paque > > 3rd reserve: 17. Chun Eung Hwi > > > > Again, thank you all for volunteering, and congratulations to the > > winners of the lottery. :-) > > > > The next step is the appointment of the non-voting chair. According to > > the IGC Charter, this is to be done by the coordinators "with the > > advice of the IGC membership". > > > > In view of the situation with the tight timeline, Sala's and my > > initial thoughts are to look for someone from the list of volunteers > > (who was not randomly selected as voting member) with nomcom > > experience, as those who have volunteered have already expressed > > willingness to give up time which is not easy at this time of the > > year with holidays and budget preparation deadlines etc. > > > > In any case, since the charter says "with the advice of the IGC > > membership", there is a need to provide an opportunity for such > > advice. However, in view of the tight timeline, we can assure that > > such advice will be taken into account only if it received by > > Thursday Nov 14 noon UTC. If you wish to provide advice, please try > > to post your thoughts before that time. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > P.S. Again, the list of nomcom volunteers was: > > > > > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > > > > > > > 1. Adam Peake > > > > 2. Ian Peter > > > > 3. Kossi Amessinou > > > > 4. Angela Daly > > > > 5. Jeremy Hunsinger > > > > 6. Kerry Brown > > > > 7. Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > > > 8. Erick Iriarte Ahon > > > > 9. Ginger Paque > > > > 10. Jose F Callo Romero > > > > 11. Suresh Ramasubramanium > > > > 12. Badouin Schombe > > > > 13. Robin Gross > > > > 14. Tapani Tarvainen > > > > 15. David Cake > > > > 16. Jeremy Malcolm > > > > 17. Chun Eung Hwi > > > > 18. Antonio Medina Gomez > > > > 19. Shaila Rao Mistry > > > > 20. Deirdre Williams > > > > 21. Devon Blake > > > > 22. José Félix Arias Ynche > > > > 23. Michael Gurstein > > > > 24. JFC Morfin > > > > 25. Mwendwa Kivuva > > > > 26. Dave Kissoondoyal > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 14 09:17:33 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:47:33 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC In-Reply-To: References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> <5282AE07.5000308@apc.org> Message-ID: <28E09C5A-42DF-46F7-ABBB-E214A93C31D2@hserus.net> This does appear consistent with Parminder's previous stances - such as the one documented in that much denied Daily Mail article .. So while I would be the last person to say anybody at all should not be allowed to identify themselves as CS, there's a vast gulf between that and allowing an individual with views such as that to be seen as representative of this caucus, so if he is the focal or representative for IGC somewhere, that is something we need to take a hard look at. --srs (iPad) > On 14-Nov-2013, at 19:30, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Like Adam, I too was quite disappointed to hear Parminder argue that the Correspondence Group should not be open to all stakeholders. It was particularly jarring seeing that the bulk of the preparation during the meeting for the work that the CG will be taking up was actually done by two civil society/technical community observers who were physically present at the meeting. There was thus already a precedent for involvement of the larger community in this work. To hear a CS representative argue in favour of that being rolled back was quite unfortunate. > > Best, > Anja > > >> On 13 November 2013 19:28, Adam Peake wrote: >> Thanks Joy. >> >> Disappointing to see Parminder partnering with Iran and Saudi Arabia (what a trio...) "called for an holistic approach to internet governance as a means to fully implement enhanced cooperation, and for this to be materialised in a new centralised global inter-governmental mechanism". >> >> Parminder, I hope when you present these ill conceived notions you inform the WG that they are very much your own positions and not widely supported by civil society. They get no support when you mention on the IGC or bestbits lists. >> >> The live transcription was had to follow --in all uppercase letters rolling down the screen-- but it seems you tried to limit participation in the Correspondence Group mentioned in the summary Joy provided (to provide "analysis of issues/existing mechanisms/on-going activities") while the rest of civil society and others successfully kept it open to all. Is that right, you argued for a closed group? >> >> On our mailing lists you are full of talk if transparency and openness and then when in more closed surroundings you are actually a man of government and control. Not good. >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:39 AM, joy wrote: >> >> > Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general >> > note on the summary of the meeting: http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/ >> > >> > regards >> > >> > Joy Liddicoat >> > >> > On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> Dear people, >> >> >> >> Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the >> >> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting >> >> just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest >> >> edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in >> >> Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. >> >> >> >> In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the >> >> advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this >> >> phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always >> >> taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to >> >> suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet. >> >> >> >> Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in >> >> PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed >> >> -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has >> >> not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such, >> >> and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet >> >> requires periodic revisions. >> >> >> >> The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF >> >> should follow, as described in its paragraph 72: >> >> >> >> ------ >> >> 72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, >> >> to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum >> >> for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance >> >> Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to: >> >> >> >> a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet >> >> governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, >> >> stability and development of the Internet. >> >> >> >> b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different >> >> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and >> >> discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body. >> >> >> >> c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other >> >> institutions on matters under their purview. >> >> >> >> d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in >> >> this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific >> >> and technical communities. >> >> >> >> e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the >> >> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world. >> >> >> >> f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing >> >> and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from >> >> developing countries. >> >> >> >> g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant >> >> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations. >> >> >> >> h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing >> >> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. >> >> >> >> i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS >> >> principles in Internet governance processes. >> >> >> >> j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources. >> >> >> >> k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse >> >> of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users. >> >> >> >> l) Publish its proceedings. >> >> ------ >> >> >> >> It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF. >> >> First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented >> >> forum, not merely a sequence of events. >> >> >> >> Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be >> >> generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which >> >> have been basically ignored by the UN. >> >> >> >> The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its >> >> mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda >> >> have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which >> >> is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically >> >> on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the >> >> expertises needed to carry out this challenge . >> >> >> >> It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or >> >> might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it >> >> might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process. >> >> >> >> As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced >> >> cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development >> >> (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN >> >> General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has >> >> revealed some worrying weaknesses . >> >> >> >> The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the >> >> production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There >> >> were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil >> >> society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the >> >> business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing >> >> countries. >> >> >> >> It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including >> >> the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the >> >> APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of >> >> the various views of the working group in relation to themes of >> >> cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is >> >> attached in PDF] >> >> >> >> The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal >> >> the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis >> >> Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet >> >> Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively, >> >> significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics >> >> possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group >> >> difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to >> >> group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group >> >> ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The >> >> perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG >> >> and the WSIS process is inevitable . >> >> >> >> One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants >> >> are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not >> >> necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar >> >> to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both >> >> the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report. >> >> >> >> Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this >> >> process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate >> >> below. >> >> >> >> A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an >> >> interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and >> >> possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for >> >> easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of >> >> the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and >> >> consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their >> >> suggestions: >> >> >> >> ------ >> >> Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and >> >> Observers >> >> >> >> 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a >> >> reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living >> >> document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and >> >> responsibilities of all participants; >> >> >> >> 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined >> >> by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles >> >> were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva >> >> Declaration of Principles; >> >> >> >> 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it >> >> and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance; >> >> >> >> 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended >> >> in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75; >> >> >> >> 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for >> >> Enhanced Cooperation; >> >> >> >> 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms spring into existence organically >> >> as they are needed and that there is no need to create new mechanisms >> >> in a top down manner; >> >> >> >> 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand >> >> internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking >> >> into account, its multi-stakeholder nature; >> >> >> >> 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda >> >> defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation; >> >> >> >> 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that >> >> are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion >> >> Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the >> >> larger IGF community; >> >> >> >> 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the recommendations of the CSTD WG on >> >> IGF Improvements including its mandate to give advice to the functional >> >> Internet governance and management organizations; >> >> >> >> 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the >> >> IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters >> >> within their mandates; >> >> >> >> 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF >> >> process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other >> >> stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal >> >> footing; >> >> >> >> 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to >> >> participate in the IGF. >> >> >> >> 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all >> >> stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and >> >> to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced. >> >> ------ >> >> >> >> In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but >> >> essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced >> >> cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around >> >> these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative >> >> processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the >> >> generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance. >> >> >> >> On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the >> >> governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden: >> >> >> >> ------ >> >> - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of >> >> all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet >> >> governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative >> >> working methods such as remote participation. >> >> >> >> - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate >> >> through capactity building, including but not limited to, training >> >> programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing. >> >> >> >> - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and >> >> consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates >> >> affordable access for all stakeholders. >> >> >> >> - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to >> >> empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework >> >> that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights >> >> online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support >> >> mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships. >> >> ------ >> >> >> >> At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can >> >> help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC. >> >> >> >> fraternal regards >> >> >> >> --c.a. >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Nov 14 09:54:11 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:54:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [berkmanfriends] New Internet Monitor report: "Measuring Internet Activity: A (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rebekah Heacock Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:57 AM Subject: [berkmanfriends] New Internet Monitor report: "Measuring Internet Activity: A (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics" To: Berkman Friends Dear Berkfriends, The announcement will go public later this morning, but the Internet Monitor team wanted to give you all a sneak peek at our new paper, an exploration of current efforts to measure digital activity within three areas: infrastructure and access, control, and content and communities. Cheers, Rebekah *New Internet Monitor report: "Measuring Internet Activity: A (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics"* Internet Monitor is delighted to announce the publication of "Measuring Internet Activity: A (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics," the second in a series of special reports that focus on key events and new developments in Internet freedom, incorporating technical, legal, social, and political analyses. "Measuring Internet Activity," authored by Robert Faris and Rebekah Heacock, explores current efforts to measure digital activity within three areas: infrastructure and access, control, and content and communities: This paper seeks to describe the conceptual and practical impediments to measuring and understanding digital activity and highlights a sample of the many efforts to fill the gap between our incomplete understanding of digital life and the formidable policy questions related to developing a vibrant and healthy Internet that serves the public interest and contributes to human wellbeing. Our primary focus is on efforts to measure Internet activity, as we believe obtaining robust, accurate data is a necessary and valuable first step that will lead us closer to answering the vitally important questions of the digital realm. The full paper is available for download at SSRN: "Measuring Internet Activity: A (Selective) Review of Methods and Metrics" *About Internet Monitor* Internet Monitor is a research project to evaluate, describe, and summarize the means, mechanisms, and extent of Internet content controls and Internet activity around the world. The project will compile and curate data from multiple sources, including primary data collected by the Berkman Center and our partners, as well as relevant secondary data. Internet Monitor will create a freely available online fact base that will give policy makers, digital activists, and user communities an authoritative, independent, and multi-faceted set of quantitative data on the state of the global Internet. The project will also produce annual reports that compile this information and provide expert analysis on the state of the global Internet. *Contact* info at thenetmonitor.org -- Rebekah Heacock rebekahheacock.org | @rebekahredux | +1-617-384-9141 | Skype: rebekah.heacock Berkman Center for Internet and Society | http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ ---------- You are subscribed to the BerkmanFriends discussion list. Mailing list options: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/info/berkmanfriends Mailing list members: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/review/berkmanfriends Reminder: emails sent through this list are considered on-record unless otherwise noted. -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---------- You are subscribed to the BerkmanFriends discussion list. Mailing list options: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/info/berkmanfriends Mailing list members: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/review/berkmanfriends Reminder: emails sent through this list are considered on-record unless otherwise noted. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu Nov 14 10:31:16 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:31:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons In-Reply-To: <20131114121427.249e489a@quill> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> <20131114115421.2478f561@quill> <08C399D9-7184-466C-A012-E32F08DEAFDD@glocom.ac.jp> <20131114121427.249e489a@quill> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Adam Peake wrote: > > > An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time > > now. Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's > > plans are clear. > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > ACK. > > I'm pretty sure that even if we go forward as quickly as reasonably > possible with resolving that opposition "on principle" against the > appointment of four civil society liaisons through an informal > in-person process in Bali, that resolution process will in any case > not be complete before we have news from the Brazilian government. > +1 This is a process and will take a couple days. Let's not keep on holding everything back, including decision-making processes, till the last minute or the lightest shade of gray be illuminated. m. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > > > Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled > > > with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the > > > liaisons? > > > > > > If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, > > > and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. > > > > > > There was very strong support for what this letter has been > > > proposed to express among the IGC members who participated in > > > person in the relevant discussions in Bali. > > > > > > The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC > > > Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online > > > polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming > > > majority of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to > > > the Charter, such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 > > > hours, then the coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the > > > result as "rough consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision > > > that can be appealed if desired.) > > > > > > But we should certainly discuss the matter first. > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > > > >> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial > > >> distinction between the technical community and civil society is > > >> counterproductive in the long run. > > >> > > >> --srs (iPad) > > >> > > >>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: > > >>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal > > >>>>>> letter nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not > > >>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for > > >>>>>> information regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate > > >>>>>> and help our job here. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that > > >>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to > > >>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go > > >>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is > > >>>>> of the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into > > >>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that > > >>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If > > >>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe > > >>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At > > >>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... > > >>>> > > >>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps > > >>> > > >>> Looks good to me. > > >>> > > >>> 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Nov 14 11:26:03 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:26:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Sacrificing the ICANN Will Not Be Enough for the U, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <52834AE4.2010004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Nov 14 11:40:09 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:40:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] NEW - English Version of Brazilian Marco Civil Bill In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Regarding Eduardo's question, I suggest you take a look (with help of Google translate :-) ) at this very clarifying interview CA has given recently: http://www.nupef.org.br/?q=node/112 On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: > Thanks a lot Carolina. This is extremely helpful to understand the > domestic process in Brazil. > > I have a question to you and my fellow brazilian colleagues. You said in > your email that the new version received great support from the Brazilian > civil society. Does this support include the support of the new art. 11, 12 > and 13? > > I would like to receive the reactions/comments from other people in the > network. Maybe I am missing something but those articles includes > provisions that form me, first, are not very realistic from an > implementation perspective, and second, if this idea is supported in > Brazil, I don´t know how we will oppose the same idea for other countries > that could use the provisions to go against local civil society groups. > > I copied below the articles mentioned above: > > Art. 11. Any process of collection, storage, custody and treatment of > records, personal data or communications by connection providers and > Internet applications providers, in which at least one of these acts occurs > in the national territory, shall respect Brazilian law, the rights to > Privacy, and the confidentiality of personal data, of private > communications and records. > > § 1 The provisions aforementioned apply to data collected in the national > territory and the content of communications, in which at least one of the > terminals is located in Brazil. > > § 2 The provisions aforementioned apply even if the activities are carried > out by legal entity located abroad, provided that at least one member of > the same economic group owns property/is established in Brazil. > > § 3 The connection providers and Internet applications provider shall > provide, in the form of regulations, information that allow the > verification regarding compliance with Brazilian legislation regarding the > collection, custody, storage and processing of data, as well as how the > provider respects the privacy and secrecy of communications. > > § 4 Decree shall regulate the procedure for finding violations of the > provisions of this article. > > Article 12. The Executive Branch, through Decree, may force connection > providers and Internet applications providers provided for in art. 11, who > exercise their activities in an organized, professional and economic way, > to install or use structures for storage, management and dissemination of > data in the country, considering the size of the providers, its sales in > Brazil and breadth of the service offering to the Brazilian public. > > Article 13. Without prejudice to other civil, criminal or administrative > penalties, violations of the rules laid down in Articles 10, 11 and 12 > shall be subject, as appropriate, the following sanctions, applied > individually or cumulatively: > > I - warning, indicating the deadline for corrective action; > > II - a fine of up to ten percent of the gross revenues of the economic > group in Brazil in its last financial year, excluding taxes; > > III - Temporary suspension of activities involving the acts specified in > Clauses 11 and 12, or > > IV - the prohibition of the exercise of activities that involve the acts > referred to in Articles 11 and 12. > > Single paragraph. In the case of a foreign company, its subsidiary, > branch, office or establishment in the country will be jointly and > severally liable for payment of the penalties aforementioned. > I look forward to hearing from you. > > Best > > e > > > > Eduardo > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> *** sorry for cross-posting *** >> >> during the past few days I used some hours translating the new version of >> the Marco Civil made public last week. >> >> This version has receive great support of the Brazilian civil society and >> has also gather great (but not yet enough) support from legislators. >> >> Please, find it attached. The first column was the initial public text, >> the second one IS THE NEW OFFICIAL version and the third one its >> translation. The text in yellow are some of the core changes...however, >> they do not mirror what was deleted. >> >> Best, >> >> C >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* >> Open Technology Institute >> *New America Foundation* >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Thu Nov 14 14:09:39 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:09:39 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <52833C17.70002@apc.org> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109091107.4d5a58e5@quill> <54BE9623-6D68-4656-B792-519625C8308A@ciroap.org> <527E9C2F.7070008@apc.org> <527F5F7C.3070404@itforchange.net> <527F6A03.3030102@cafonso.ca> <52833C17.70002@apc.org> Message-ID: This is an important thread and from the responses by the 3 target groups *"members of the BestBits Steering Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and to the coordinators of the IGC"* some conclusions should be drawn before the thread is buried by other upcoming events. According the Wikipedia: *Disclosure of conflicts of interest :* disclosing the interests of the [individual] which may bear on the subject being [written about, discussed ...], for example, if the [individual] has worked with an interview subject in the past or is otherwise prejudiced towards or against the subject at hand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclosure >From that defination alone, there is no reason why anybody who claims to be Civil Society should object to "Disclosure of Conflict of Interest". Some things have to be put into perspective as Anriette, Avri, et-al have tried to do, receiving funds does not amount to supporting the interests of the donor although it can cloud your judgement (who pays the piper calls the tunes). In that case, its totally demanded, in the interest of transparency to disclose. You can say, Company X, who's interest is moving towards the West is funding me, but I'm moving towards the East. That is disclosure. Regards ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh On 13 November 2013 00:45, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Agree with you on this c.a. And suggest that our NomComs take this on as > part of their work. > > On 10/11/2013 13:12, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > I do not see we need to complicate this too much. It is actually simple: > > we are all (I assume) part of or linked to civil society orgs. I think > > all of these have Web portals. Anyone who needs to check on these issues > > regarding any of the participants in these cauci would just visit the > > corresponding institutional portal. > > > > But no one is obliged to disclose certain infos -- one reason is of > > course the safety regarding a possibly adverse political environment > > where the organization legally resides. However, when we select > > coordinators for example, it would (again, my opinion) be relevant as > > part of the selection criteria to know about funding relationships. > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Nov 14 14:27:14 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:27:14 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: WSIS+10 Zero Draft In-Reply-To: <02f601cee16b$be3ea590$3abbf0b0$@gmail.com> References: <02f601cee16b$be3ea590$3abbf0b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <032a01cee16f$87808790$968196b0$@gmail.com> My own particular involvement with Internet Governance issues began with the intertwining of the community informatics approach and the various discussions associated with the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS-Geneva and Tunis). As is its habit, the UN is now revisiting the Summit + 10 and is in the process of creating various types of documentation including importantly a review document on what has happened with respect to the original WSIS outcomes and where, as a global Summit, agreements should be entered into (at a meeting to be held in late 2014) to go on from here. I'm attaching the current draft output document (apologies for the highlighting. One significant difference between now and the original summits is that while the significance of the Internet has increased dramatically in the interim in all shapes and forms, the specific interest in the creation of an overall policy framework for the global deployment of the Internet has, in key areas (including most of those of interest from a community informatics perspective-the digital divide, digital inclusion, community empowerment through ICT use and so on) for the most part disappeared and particularly virtually all financial support for independent/CS research and representation and even programming in these areas.(for an interesting blogpost looking at this in my own country Canada see http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/14/digital-divide-canada-poor_n_4269171 .html?utm_hp_ref=canada What this means is that whereas the Civil Society intervention in the WSIS process was active and effective (including in support of a broad community informatics approach) there is virtually no counterpart developments in relation to this revisiting. (You will recall a flurry of notes etc. that I posted here on this subject at the beginning of this year.) I haven't yet had a chance to go through these documents in detail but a quick review suggests that, as I tried to say in my comments at the WSIS +10 meeting in February, it is not enough simply to review what has gone on before and to project it into the future it is also necessary to recognize where there has been failure and where past successes have led to new and significant issues which in turn need to be addressed. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/making-happytalk-in-paris-disneylan d-and-the-wsis-10-review/ I'm not sure if anything much can be done on this at this stage but for those with an interest it is worth taking a look at these documents and for those with even more interest the overall process is described at http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/ M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Zero Draft_Full.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2620569 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Nov 14 15:40:13 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:40:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] EU Commissioner References: <02f601cee16b$be3ea590$3abbf0b0$@gmail.com> <032a01cee16f$87808790$968196b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332200@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-922_en.htm W -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bavouc at gmail.com Thu Nov 14 15:54:11 2013 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Martial Bavou) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:54:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: <52841C45.7050706@itforchange.net> References: <52841C45.7050706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I would like to nominate Nnenna for MAG, hope this don’t come late. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: jeudi 14 novembre 2013 01:42 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT Dear Co-coordinators IT for Change will like to put forward the name of Mawaki Chango to be considered by the nomcom. We have obtained his consent for that. We are awaiting another confirmation. Can you please again remind us of the deadline. Thanks, parminder On Wednesday 13 November 2013 11:45 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Dear All, This is to advise that these are the current nominations received for MAG Candidates that will go through the process of selection by a randomly selected NomCom. Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. 1. Asif Kabani 2. Rudi Vansnick 3. Sonigitu Ekpe 4. Imran Ahmed Shah 5. Fouad Bajwa 6. Katim S Touray 7. Stuart Hamilton Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Nov 14 16:46:21 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:46:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit In-Reply-To: <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Also looks fine by me. m. On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: > > Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter > nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not representatives, for > International Civil Society for information regarding the Summit will be > good to legitimate and help our job here. > > > > A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that global civil > society would want to use this mechanism to coordinate its role in the > proposed Brazil meeting and not go through 1net or any other tehcnical > community led interface is of the highest priority at this stage. Dont want > to get into I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that > first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If we have > got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe our four reps would > have been there at the above meeting. At least if they werent invited we > could have protested... > > > Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps > > -- > > > > *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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 14 16:58:04 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:58:04 -0800 Subject: Strategies for Engagement / Was Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons In-Reply-To: <5284AF7B.8000903@cafonso.ca> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> <20131114115421.2478f561@quill> <08C399D9-7184-466C-A012-E32F08DEAFDD@glocom.ac.jp> <5284AF7B.8000903@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5B6439A3-2427-4A22-BDCC-7137BB2FFEFF@gmail.com> Dear All, Having just landed, my view is that no meeting without civil society is legitimate and would be contrary to the very principles of Multistakeholderism that diverse stakeholders cherish. Having said that we will be at the table. What is important is for Civil Society to organise itself- and quickly identify issues within their constituency or things that they want to see on the Agenda. For now, any meetings in Brazil in relation to the Summit needs to be watched and reported back from our liaisons on the ground, that is those who live there who have ready access. They will not put forward any view from us unless we have reached consensus on the matter but they can certainly raise critical points such as: 1)Civil Society will be involved in planning, designing of the Summit, which requires space in the Steering Committee, at the moment what i have heard is that those who fill those positions will do so in lieu of appointments by various stakeholder groups. This means that once our cross constituency civil society NomCom or equivalent makes the selection, they they will replace those sitting in lieu. A condition for sitting in lieu will be that they will not be able to be on the steering committee following elections/appointment. This will be true all across the board. For now we should empower our Brazilian colleagues to be our voice in the discussions in Brazil. 2)Work needs to start on Agenda crafting, some of these issues have been discussed on the mailing list but we need to consolidate and build on it. I would suggest that the IGC, APC and Best Bits takes the lead role in setting the timelines and invite all other constituencies to work within their communities to craft the issues and the Agenda and feed them into a working group mailing list. The mailing list can be hosted on the IGC platform. If all three groups agree, I would suggest that if Wolfgang Kleinwachter is willing that he chair this joint group and lead the process with the backing of all three groups. Care has to be taken to include all the views from within civil society in the development of our positions and to record conflicted positions. This can be communicated to all other civil society organisations globally to gather their issues and concerns. 3)Various civil society groups need to quickly decide on a framework for selection that is acceptable to all and that is fair, transparent etc. APC can lead the Working group if they are willing could lead this process for liaising with other CS groups. 4)We should also think about developing an Engagement Strategy: a)Outreach- ensuring that we are inclusive and no civil society group is marginalized; b)Appoint Liaisons to the Business Constituency, Technical Constituency and other constituencies who will report back on what is happening, what the general moods are and can also raise our concerns or issues. c)If there are new civil society groups who are trying to get their heads around the issues, we can ask Internet Jurisdiction and Diplo to jointly facilitate a Webinar to bring new participants to an equalised platform so engagement is seamless from all participants. 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 kichango at gmail.com Thu Nov 14 17:32:50 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 22:32:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit In-Reply-To: <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial > distinction between the technical community and civil society is > counterproductive in the long run. > I have no intention of opposing your opposition, but is there any categorization scheme that is not artificial? My understanding so far of what the technical community is about is that they are mostly concerned with designing protocols, setting standards and handling the day to day operation of the networks, and sometimes coordinating all those moving parts. I thought TC takes pride in being rather neutral (or a-political, if you will), just trying to make things work in the most efficient manner. Do you see the same bunch of people spend time and other resources going around to push for agendas for which the technology may already be there but just the political will is lacking? Like, for instance, using some available technologies and other resources to make access more affordable. You see no difference between the role that a group such as Access or APC would play in that regard and that of, say, an RIR? I'm just curious since you seem so vehement about any line of distinction. That said, it's also clear that some of the i* orgs can play in both repertoires or combine both dimensions. Besides... beware what you wish for because we could end up with just two stakeholder groups: government vs non-government/CS (the latter for all of us.) There was a time not so long ago in France when the newly appointed prime minister or other cabinet members were not straight from the political class (from none of the political parties) they were referred to in the media as appointees from CS. Some were professors, some business men. m. > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > >> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: > >>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter > >>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not > >>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information > >>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job > >>>> here. > >>> > >>> > >>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that global > >>> civil society would want to use this mechanism to coordinate its > >>> role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go through 1net or any > >>> other tehcnical community led interface is of the highest priority > >>> at this stage. Dont want to get into I-told-you-so mode, but I have > >>> been insisting that we did that first and in clear terms since our > >>> earliest meetings in Bali. If we have got such a communication > >>> through in clear terms, maybe our four reps would have been there > >>> at the above meeting. At least if they werent invited we could have > >>> protested... > >> > >> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps > > > > Looks good to me. > > > > 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Nov 14 18:07:57 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:07:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit In-Reply-To: <20131114105940.78057396@quill> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org>,<20131114105940.78057396@quill> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A644C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> +1 (a few line letter noting cs liaisons already known is perhaps not quite the place for a metaphysical debate on the nature of cs, tech community, life on earth, etc.; noting objection raised) ________________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:59 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: > >> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter > >> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not > >> representatives, for International Civil Society for information > >> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job > >> here. > > > > > > A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that global > > civil society would want to use this mechanism to coordinate its > > role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go through 1net or any > > other tehcnical community led interface is of the highest priority > > at this stage. Dont want to get into I-told-you-so mode, but I have > > been insisting that we did that first and in clear terms since our > > earliest meetings in Bali. If we have got such a communication > > through in clear terms, maybe our four reps would have been there > > at the above meeting. At least if they werent invited we could have > > protested... > > Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps Looks good to me. 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 Thu Nov 14 18:44:37 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:44:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit In-Reply-To: References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> Message-ID: Hi, On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> >> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial >> distinction between the technical community and civil society is >> counterproductive in the long run. > > > I have no intention of opposing your opposition, but is there any > categorization scheme that is not artificial? Good point, the MSism of Geneva is not the same multi-stakholderism of the T&A (tho there are silos inside ICANN, which is regrettable and hopefully fixable). I'm not sure we can fix the silos in Geneva. In the IETF and the RIR system for example, everyone shows up (on lists or in person) as themselves, not as part of an artificial grouping. It is more of an egalitarian meritocracy, where everyone has time at the microphone (or on unmoderated lists) to pitch defend or critique ideas/policies/standards. My understanding so far of > what the technical community is about is that they are mostly concerned with > designing protocols, setting standards and handling the day to day operation > of the networks, and sometimes coordinating all those moving parts. There is protocol and standards making and other policy processes, but the T&A folk are largely administrative. There is of course research and some networks being run, but the vast majority of Internetworks are run by PS and some gov folks. Coordination, collaboration and communication are a big part of what the T&A do, but they are largely administrative. You should go to an AFRINIC meeting, it would be highly instructive! I > thought TC takes pride in being rather neutral (or a-political, if you > will), just trying to make things work in the most efficient manner. Do you > see the same bunch of people spend time and other resources going around to > push for agendas for which the technology may already be there but just the > political will is lacking? yes, see DNSSEC and IPv6. Like, for instance, using some available > technologies and other resources to make access more affordable. Yes, see FIRE/FRIDA/ISIF Asia awards. You see no > difference between the role that a group such as Access or APC would play in > that regard and that of, say, an RIR? There is plenty of overlap in capacity building and other areas. I'm just curious since you seem so > vehement about any line of distinction. That said, it's also clear that some > of the i* orgs can play in both repertoires or combine both dimensions. > > Besides... beware what you wish for because we could end up with just two > stakeholder groups: government vs non-government/CS (the latter for all of > us.) As you pointed out, these groupings are artificial and thrust upon us at WSIS. The 1net initiative is not supposed to be T&A led, it is supposed to be an umbrella for all to join. I am against further dividing the world into us vs them in terms of planning for Brazil mtg. -- 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 pouzin at well.com Thu Nov 14 19:09:21 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 01:09:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] EU Commissioner Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:40 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-922_en.htm > > W > > When .eu was launched in 2005, it was touted as providing a trusted space. Eight years later we get the same song with the cloud. When will the nebula be launched :-)) 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 kichango at gmail.com Thu Nov 14 19:33:20 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:33:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit In-Reply-To: References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> Message-ID: Hi, On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:44 PM, McTim wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < > suresh at hserus.net> > > wrote: > >> > >> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial > >> distinction between the technical community and civil society is > >> counterproductive in the long run. > > > > > > I have no intention of opposing your opposition, but is there any > > categorization scheme that is not artificial? > > > Good point, the MSism of Geneva is not the same multi-stakholderism of > the T&A (tho there are silos inside ICANN, which is regrettable and > hopefully fixable). I'm not sure we can fix the silos in Geneva. In > the IETF and the RIR system for example, everyone shows up (on lists > or in person) as themselves, not as part of an artificial grouping. > It is more of an egalitarian meritocracy, where everyone has time at > the microphone (or on unmoderated lists) to pitch defend or critique > ideas/policies/standards. > > > My understanding so far of > > what the technical community is about is that they are mostly concerned > with > > designing protocols, setting standards and handling the day to day > operation > > of the networks, and sometimes coordinating all those moving parts. > > There is protocol and standards making and other policy processes, but > the T&A folk are largely administrative. There is of course research > and some networks being run, but the vast majority of Internetworks > are run by PS and some gov folks. Coordination, collaboration and > communication are a big part of what the T&A do, but they are largely > administrative. You should go to an AFRINIC meeting, it would be > highly instructive! > Sounds to me like you and I discussed this once... like we both were at the Maputo meeting back in 2004? or 03? but didn't meet. Rings a bell? I will probably attend upcoming Abidjan, will you? And instead of us guessing, what do you mean by T&A? > > I > > thought TC takes pride in being rather neutral (or a-political, if you > > will), just trying to make things work in the most efficient manner. Do > you > > see the same bunch of people spend time and other resources going around > to > > push for agendas for which the technology may already be there but just > the > > political will is lacking? > > yes, see DNSSEC and IPv6. > > Like, for instance, using some available > > technologies and other resources to make access more affordable. > > > Yes, see FIRE/FRIDA/ISIF Asia awards. > > > > You see no > > difference between the role that a group such as Access or APC would > play in > > that regard and that of, say, an RIR? > > There is plenty of overlap in capacity building and other areas. > > > I'm just curious since you seem so > > vehement about any line of distinction. That said, it's also clear that > some > > of the i* orgs can play in both repertoires or combine both dimensions. > > > > Besides... beware what you wish for because we could end up with just two > > stakeholder groups: government vs non-government/CS (the latter for all > of > > us.) > > > As you pointed out, these groupings are artificial and thrust upon us at > WSIS. > Yes, but examples don't exhaust the question, which is: is there any distinctiveness between those two modus operandi and modes of practice, even if there are instances of overlap in goals? I think yes. However... > > The 1net initiative is not supposed to be T&A led, it is supposed to > be an umbrella for all to join. I am against further dividing the > world into us vs them in terms of planning for Brazil mtg. > I would agree with this approach, instead, provided that it recognizes the diversity of the voices (including groupings or sub-groupings) joining in, in order to foster better environment for collaboration. Now, frankly, I don't know how CS was approached about that idea at start--assuming the explicit intent was what you describe above. For some reasons I cannot tell (I wasn't in Bali), the approach didn't seem to have elicited a whole lot of trust (e.g., trust that the non-tech CS specific message will be given the proper attention or the weight it deserves.) And unless someone can prove me wrong, I just can't believe that that was due to the bad faith of the CS participants involved. Whatever way we choose to proceed, I think the spirit of cooperation must remain. Diversity of voices (hopefully an orderly one) doesn't necessarily have to be characterized as us vs them --and does not actually have to be that. That's all I can say... and hope for. m. > > > -- > 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 kichango at gmail.com Thu Nov 14 19:45:18 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:45:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] EU Commissioner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Maybe now that they have realized their phones are being tapped, I'm sure they have an unwavering resolve to come up with a nebula that would melt the tips of any prism ;) m. On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:40 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > >> >> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-922_en.htm >> >> W >> >> When .eu was launched in 2005, it was touted as providing a trusted > space. > Eight years later we get the same song with the cloud. > When will the nebula be launched :-)) > Louis > - - - > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 14 19:58:44 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 06:28:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit In-Reply-To: References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> Message-ID: --srs (iPad) > > Sounds to me like you and I discussed this once... like we both were at the Maputo meeting back in 2004? or 03? but didn't meet. Rings a bell? > I will probably attend upcoming Abidjan, will you? > > And instead of us guessing, what do you mean by T&A? Technical and academia >> I would agree with this approach, instead, provided that it recognizes the diversity of the voices (including groupings or sub-groupings) joining in, in order to foster better environment for collaboration. So would I But the issue of civil society versus technical community keeps getting raised by people more focused on driving wedges rather than building bridges, which does make me wary about supporting any such letter > Now, frankly, I don't know how CS was approached about that idea at start--assuming the explicit intent was what you describe above. For some reasons I cannot tell (I wasn't in Bali), the approach didn't seem to have elicited a whole lot of trust (e.g., trust that the non-tech CS specific message will be given the proper attention or the weight it deserves.) And unless someone can prove me wrong, I just can't believe that that was due to the bad faith of the CS participants involved. Ha yes, that's the same feeling that I get srs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 14 20:22:40 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:22:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit In-Reply-To: References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Hi, > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:44 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial >> >> distinction between the technical community and civil society is >> >> counterproductive in the long run. >> > >> > >> > I have no intention of opposing your opposition, but is there any >> > categorization scheme that is not artificial? >> >> >> Good point, the MSism of Geneva is not the same multi-stakholderism of >> the T&A (tho there are silos inside ICANN, which is regrettable and >> hopefully fixable). I'm not sure we can fix the silos in Geneva. In >> the IETF and the RIR system for example, everyone shows up (on lists >> or in person) as themselves, not as part of an artificial grouping. >> It is more of an egalitarian meritocracy, where everyone has time at >> the microphone (or on unmoderated lists) to pitch defend or critique >> ideas/policies/standards. >> >> >> My understanding so far of >> > what the technical community is about is that they are mostly concerned >> > with >> > designing protocols, setting standards and handling the day to day >> > operation >> > of the networks, and sometimes coordinating all those moving parts. >> >> There is protocol and standards making and other policy processes, but >> the T&A folk are largely administrative. There is of course research >> and some networks being run, but the vast majority of Internetworks >> are run by PS and some gov folks. Coordination, collaboration and >> communication are a big part of what the T&A do, but they are largely >> administrative. You should go to an AFRINIC meeting, it would be >> highly instructive! > > > Sounds to me like you and I discussed this once... like we both were at the > Maputo meeting back in 2004? or 03? but didn't meet. Rings a bell? Maputo, 2005. Champions League Final week. > I will probably attend upcoming Abidjan, will you? No, alas I will not. I am no longer in Africa in any case. > > And instead of us guessing, what do you mean by T&A? That Stakeholder group given to us by WSIS, the I*'s, Af*'s, etc, etc. >> >> >> I >> > thought TC takes pride in being rather neutral (or a-political, if you >> > will), just trying to make things work in the most efficient manner. Do >> > you >> > see the same bunch of people spend time and other resources going around >> > to >> > push for agendas for which the technology may already be there but just >> > the >> > political will is lacking? >> >> yes, see DNSSEC and IPv6. >> >> Like, for instance, using some available >> > technologies and other resources to make access more affordable. >> >> >> Yes, see FIRE/FRIDA/ISIF Asia awards. >> >> >> >> You see no >> > difference between the role that a group such as Access or APC would >> > play in >> > that regard and that of, say, an RIR? >> >> There is plenty of overlap in capacity building and other areas. >> >> >> I'm just curious since you seem so >> > vehement about any line of distinction. That said, it's also clear that >> > some >> > of the i* orgs can play in both repertoires or combine both dimensions. >> > >> > Besides... beware what you wish for because we could end up with just >> > two >> > stakeholder groups: government vs non-government/CS (the latter for all >> > of >> > us.) >> >> >> As you pointed out, these groupings are artificial and thrust upon us at >> WSIS. > > > Yes, but examples don't exhaust the question, which is: is there any > distinctiveness between those two modus operandi and modes of practice, even > if there are instances of overlap in goals? I think yes. However... >> >> >> The 1net initiative is not supposed to be T&A led, it is supposed to >> be an umbrella for all to join. I am against further dividing the >> world into us vs them in terms of planning for Brazil mtg. > > > I would agree with this approach, instead, provided that it recognizes the > diversity of the voices (including groupings or sub-groupings) joining in, > in order to foster better environment for collaboration. > Now, frankly, I don't know how CS was approached about that idea at > start--assuming the explicit intent was what you describe above. For some > reasons I cannot tell (I wasn't in Bali), the approach didn't seem to have > elicited a whole lot of trust (e.g., trust that the non-tech CS specific > message will be given the proper attention or the weight it deserves.) Is there a message? And > unless someone can prove me wrong, I just can't believe that that was due to > the bad faith of the CS participants involved. This process will require lots of good faith effort from everyone. It is going from zero to some kind of meeting in 6 months with no prepcom/processes in place. I'm not saying CS is showing bad faith, but certainly I see lots of suspicion, even paranoia (BB talking about closing off a list to talk strategy, so the "others" won't know our cunning plans). > > Whatever way we choose to proceed, I think the spirit of cooperation must > remain. Diversity of voices (hopefully an orderly one) doesn't necessarily > have to be characterized as us vs them --and does not actually have to be > that. That's all I can say... and hope for. One can only hope! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 14 22:01:51 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:01:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] EU Commissioner In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332200@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <02f601cee16b$be3ea590$3abbf0b0$@gmail.com> <032a01cee16f$87808790$968196b0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332200@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <1BF9AC6F-73FF-4A80-93C5-17C3C471B20E@glocom.ac.jp> On Nov 15, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > FYI > > http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-922_en.htm > Thanks Wolfgang. (Neelie Kroes talking about a cloud for europe -- cloud computing based on EU data protection law.) I send a note about this topic a while back, some research for the European Parliament: > On Oct 3, 2013, at 11:45 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > ... >> strongly recommend people read Caspar Bowden's work for the European Parliament on PRISM and FISA. Bowden's been writing about the threat of FISA, etc. for some years, Snowden has made clear just how important his work is. >> >> Caspar Bowden speaking at the European Parliament Tuesday Sept 24, >> Study referred to in the presentation "The US surveillance programmes and their impact on EU citizens' fundamental rights" (need to remember it's all our rights, not just EU citizens). >> >> This earlier document "fighting cyber crime and protecting privacy in the cloud" very good, BBC article shows Bowden's foresight. >> >> The points he makes about an economic response (without some government regulated nationalist/regionalist policy) are sensible. >> >> And these: >> >> >> >> >> >> Summary of Caspar, Jacob Applebaum, Bruce Schneier others speaking at an event in Lausanne on Monday also worth reading. >> >> Would be wonderful of the recent EU Parliament document linked above could be used as a briefing document for the Emerging Issues session in Bali. Unfortunately I don't think Caspar can attend the IGF. >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> > W > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Thu Nov 14 22:19:34 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:19:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] EU Commissioner In-Reply-To: <1BF9AC6F-73FF-4A80-93C5-17C3C471B20E@glocom.ac.jp> References: <02f601cee16b$be3ea590$3abbf0b0$@gmail.com> <032a01cee16f$87808790$968196b0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332200@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <1BF9AC6F-73FF-4A80-93C5-17C3C471B20E@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Hi And in a similar vein, EU should create own spy agency, Reding says http://euobserver.com/justice/121979 Bill On Nov 15, 2013, at 12:01 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > On Nov 15, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> >> FYI >> >> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-922_en.htm >> > > Thanks Wolfgang. > > (Neelie Kroes talking about a cloud for europe -- cloud computing based on EU data protection law.) > > I send a note about this topic a while back, some research for the European Parliament: > > > > >> On Oct 3, 2013, at 11:45 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> > > ... > >>> strongly recommend people read Caspar Bowden's work for the European Parliament on PRISM and FISA. Bowden's been writing about the threat of FISA, etc. for some years, Snowden has made clear just how important his work is. >>> >>> Caspar Bowden speaking at the European Parliament Tuesday Sept 24, >>> Study referred to in the presentation "The US surveillance programmes and their impact on EU citizens' fundamental rights" (need to remember it's all our rights, not just EU citizens). >>> >>> This earlier document "fighting cyber crime and protecting privacy in the cloud" very good, BBC article shows Bowden's foresight. >>> >>> The points he makes about an economic response (without some government regulated nationalist/regionalist policy) are sensible. >>> >>> And these: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Summary of Caspar, Jacob Applebaum, Bruce Schneier others speaking at an event in Lausanne on Monday also worth reading. >>> >>> Would be wonderful of the recent EU Parliament document linked above could be used as a briefing document for the Emerging Issues session in Bali. Unfortunately I don't think Caspar can attend the IGF. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> > > > > >> W >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 14 23:39:52 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:39:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] Report back with some options for open/closed lists References: <5285A4B6.2010305@ciroap.org> Message-ID: See information about a new CS list for discussing the summit in Brazil next May Adam Begin forwarded message: > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: November 15, 2013 1:36:06 PM GMT+09:00 > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Report back with some options for open/closed lists > > On 13/11/13 19:04, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> On Nov 12 20:18, Deborah Brown (deborah at accessnow.org) wrote: >> >>> I'm reporting back from some discussions among >>> the interim steering committee* on different options for moving forward. >>> Here are the some options we came up with: >>> >>> 1. Everything on the public list (i.e. status quo) >>> 2. Using the open list as the default, and have the option of moving >>> strategic conversations to the private list >>> 3. Using the open list as the default, and starting issue-specific lists >>> for strategic discussions among civil society. This would follow the model >>> of the [EC] list that was used to prepare Best Bits' submission to WGEC >>> (welcoming suggestions to improve that model). Drafting and strategic >>> discussions took place on the closed list and were reported back to the >>> main list. >>> >>> Most of us on steering prefer option 3, but we could not come to an >>> agreement on whether or not the archives of emails on civil society list >>> should be public or only available to the members of the list. >> I would prefer option three with public archives. >> >> I would, however, also like to point out a possible middle ground: >> make the archives public with a delay. > > Since we really need to be moving on with discussions now, and since it seems that most people can live with option three, and since a few people have already been subscribing to summit at lists.bestbits.net in anticipation of option three being accepted, I'm going to plough ahead and declare that subject-specific list ready for use. > > Changing the list archives from public to private or to public-with-delay (subject to technical feasibility) will not be a problem if a consensus later emerges to do that. So this debate is not forever closed. > > As a few people have complained, with some fairness, "oh no, not another list to subscribe to", I'm going to make things slightly easier for you by folding the private and steering lists into the summit list. The private and steering lists still exist independently, but if you are subscribed to either of those, then by default you are subscribed to summit also. Please email me off-list if you are on private or steering and don't want to be on summit. > > However the main Best Bits list, is not being folded into the summit list, so if you are only a member of the main list, you will need to subscribe to summit (or private) separately at http://lists.bestbits.net/wws. > > I'm also cognisant that JFC Morfin has set up another summit specific list in conjunction with this bramsummit.org wiki, and normally I wouldn't want to ride roughshod over that by opening a new list. However as there was the desire for a Best Bits summit list, and as there have been no messages posted to the bramsummit.org list yet, I hope neither he nor anyone else will mind. > > Please forward this to any other civil society participants whom you know want to discuss the summit but who aren't on the main Best Bits list. If you have any other questions or concerns, please let me or the interim steering committee know. > > Thanks! > > -- > 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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 15 00:56:53 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:26:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] NomCom constituted (was Re: UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees...) In-Reply-To: <20131114132129.1eaeb2f3@quill> References: <20131113194236.6a43852f@quill> <20131113232906.7516cc31@quill> <20131114132129.1eaeb2f3@quill> Message-ID: <5285B7A5.2040809@itforchange.net> IT for Change also nominates Mishi Choudhary of Software Freedom Law Centre, India, and US, to be considered by the nomcom for MAG... Have obtained her consent... parminder On Thursday 14 November 2013 05:51 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > The NomCom is now formally constituted, with Ian Peter as non-voting > chair. > > Many thanks to Ian for his willingness to serve in this role. > > The NomCom is fully authorized to select nominees in behalf of the > IGC; if an opportunity arises to coordinate such selection with the > selection processes of other civil society networks, there is no > reason why the IGC NomCom couldn't participate in such coordinated > selection. > > The NomCom can be reached at nomcom-mag-2014 at lists.igcaucus.org > > Further information on the NomCom process is available at > http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Am Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:29:06 +0100 > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > >> Norbert Bollow wrote, before the UK national lottery >> draw took place: >> >>> In view of the short timeframe, I will use TODAY's UK national >>> lottery draw as random seed. [..] (the six "ball numbers" and then, >>> entered separately, the number of the "bonus ball"). Five voting >>> NomCom members and then three reserves will be selected in this >>> manner. >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> The six "ball numbers" of today's draw were 4 6 15 23 36 44 and the >> "bonus ball" was 11, resulting in the following random selections: >> >> Selected as voting nomcom members: >> >> * 6. Kerry Brown >> * 24. JFC Morfin >> * 19. Shaila Rao Mistry >> * 15. David Cake >> * 20. Deirdre Williams >> >> Reserves: >> >> 1st reserve: 5. Jeremy Hunsinger >> 2nd reserve: 9. Ginger Paque >> 3rd reserve: 17. Chun Eung Hwi >> >> Again, thank you all for volunteering, and congratulations to the >> winners of the lottery. :-) >> >> The next step is the appointment of the non-voting chair. According to >> the IGC Charter, this is to be done by the coordinators "with the >> advice of the IGC membership". >> >> In view of the situation with the tight timeline, Sala's and my >> initial thoughts are to look for someone from the list of volunteers >> (who was not randomly selected as voting member) with nomcom >> experience, as those who have volunteered have already expressed >> willingness to give up time which is not easy at this time of the >> year with holidays and budget preparation deadlines etc. >> >> In any case, since the charter says "with the advice of the IGC >> membership", there is a need to provide an opportunity for such >> advice. However, in view of the tight timeline, we can assure that >> such advice will be taken into account only if it received by >> Thursday Nov 14 noon UTC. If you wish to provide advice, please try >> to post your thoughts before that time. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> P.S. Again, the list of nomcom volunteers was: >> >>>> Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >>>> >>>> 1. Adam Peake >>>> 2. Ian Peter >>>> 3. Kossi Amessinou >>>> 4. Angela Daly >>>> 5. Jeremy Hunsinger >>>> 6. Kerry Brown >>>> 7. Chaitanya Dhareshwar >>>> 8. Erick Iriarte Ahon >>>> 9. Ginger Paque >>>> 10. Jose F Callo Romero >>>> 11. Suresh Ramasubramanium >>>> 12. Badouin Schombe >>>> 13. Robin Gross >>>> 14. Tapani Tarvainen >>>> 15. David Cake >>>> 16. Jeremy Malcolm >>>> 17. Chun Eung Hwi >>>> 18. Antonio Medina Gomez >>>> 19. Shaila Rao Mistry >>>> 20. Deirdre Williams >>>> 21. Devon Blake >>>> 22. José Félix Arias Ynche >>>> 23. Michael Gurstein >>>> 24. JFC Morfin >>>> 25. Mwendwa Kivuva >>>> 26. Dave Kissoondoyal >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Fri Nov 15 01:46:38 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 01:46:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> Message-ID: <5285C34E.7070308@cis-india.org> Dear Norbert and all, A number of people, including some of the Steering Committees / coordinators mentioned, take part in civil society discussions not as representatives of organizations, but in an individual capacity. If we ask NGOs to declare their sources of funding as a transparency measure, should we require of these individuals, as a colleague of mine suggested in Bali recently, the declaration of their income tax returns? Regards, Pranesh Norbert Bollow [2013-11-08 23:24]: > Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering > Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and > to the coordinators of the IGC > > > I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below, > when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as > potentially highly problematic. > > Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at > least, shaping and directing that capacity. > > People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes > cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters that > could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic interests. > > For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively > disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps such > as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a clear > relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests. > > Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering > committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the > coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial > relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project > where a US government agency is among the funders. > > > For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding relationship, > I've never had any such funding relationships, and I have no intention > of entering into any such funding relationships in the future. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Sala wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to >> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available >> through the US State Department, see below: >> >> >> >> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for Proposals: >> Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia >> (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >> >> November 8, 2013 >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Department of State >> >> *Public Notice* >> >> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: >> *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia >> (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) >> >> *SUMMARY* >> >> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a >> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting >> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and rule >> of law in Europe and Eurasia. >> >> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * >> *www.grantsolutions.gov* * or * >> *www.grants.gov* * as soon as possible in >> order to obtain a username and password to submit your application. >> For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission >> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at * >> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm**. >> * >> >> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* >> >> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program >> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the >> following issues: >> >> *Moldova* >> >> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 available):* >> DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of minorities in >> Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, economic and >> political conditions. This program should focus on one of three >> areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or Education. Proposals >> should focus on more than one minority group and may include the >> Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or other communities. >> Proposals should clearly indicate which of the three categories they >> will address. DRL also encourages proposals which address more than >> one of the categories. >> >> *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on >> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local and >> national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. Activities >> could include, but are not limited to: training minority civic >> leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in political advocacy and to >> participate in the decision-making process; providing opportunities >> for participants to network with other minority leaders both within >> Moldova and through regional civil society networks; and targeting >> training for civic leaders and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights >> and enforcement, organizational management, or communication skills. >> >> *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on >> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in Moldova. >> The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, tolerance, >> and understanding through components such as inter-ethnic youth >> activities or cross-cultural education. The program could raise >> awareness and knowledge of minority cultures and values. Proposals >> should involve minority interaction with the majority group in joint >> activities. >> >> *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving >> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through >> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer camps, >> internship opportunities, or language training. The program should >> focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms of educational >> opportunities and outcomes. >> >> *Turkey* >> >> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately >> $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of civil >> society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase citizens’ >> awareness that they should be informed about and participate in the >> political process. The program should support civil society in >> advocating for stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, and >> protection of fundamental freedoms; and educate citizens on their >> right to participate in the political process. The program should >> build coalitions among diverse civil society groups and NGOs to bring >> together disparate voices, including traditionally marginalized >> groups, to advocate for respect for fundamental freedoms and >> government accountability. Activities should emphasize the value of >> civil society engagement in public policy debates and encourage these >> coalitions to educate their constituents and the general populace on >> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their government >> accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. Proposals >> should take advantage of traditional and new methods of outreach to >> help citizens share their views and build citizens expectations for >> political participation. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a >> strong knowledge of the political environment for civil society in >> Turkey and an established ability to work with diverse civil society >> groups. >> >> *Azerbaijan* >> >> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 >> available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil >> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for >> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program will >> encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to promote >> an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory democratic system >> of government. The program should also support the efforts of civil >> society in human rights and anti-corruption advocacy, while assisting >> civil society leaders and NGOs in increased public outreach. >> Proposals should identify best practices in efforts to promote >> democratic reforms and rule of law, and assess the needs of >> independent democracy activists and NGOs. Program activities could >> include, but are not limited to: technical assistance to build the >> capacity of Azeri democracy and human rights activists and NGOs in >> key communities to engage in effective public outreach and advocacy; >> support for activities to encourage results-oriented, constructive >> debate and advocacy by citizens and civil society organizations; >> linking NGOs and activists advocating for justice, accountability >> and/or fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s >> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized grants >> to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and grassroots >> organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability and/or >> fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a successful >> proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong >> knowledge of the environment for civil society in Azerbaijan and an >> established ability to work with regional independent civil society. >> >> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* >> >> Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions >> (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at >> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm* >> . >> >> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any >> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this >> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). >> >> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL >> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section >> up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to >> use the given space effectively. >> >> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one per >> country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries and/or >> themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals that request >> less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than the award ceiling >> ($500,000) may be deemed technically ineligible.* >> >> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive >> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* >> or *www.grants.gov* >> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before >> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions >> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission >> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of submission; >> and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the >> solicitation and this document. >> >> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals >> have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* >> * or **www.grants.gov* >> *in their entirety. DRL bears no >> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or >> conversion processes.* >> >> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. Department of >> State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing >> proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed. >> >> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will >> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* >> . >> >> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* >> >> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the >> organization or other sources, such as public-private partnerships, >> will be highly considered. Projects that have a strong academic, >> research, conference, or dialogue focus will not be deemed >> competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, technology, or science- >> related projects unless they have an explicit component related to >> the requested program objectives listed above. Projects that focus on >> commercial law or economic development will be rated as >> non-competitive. Cost sharing is strongly encouraged, and cost >> sharing contributions should be outlined in the proposal budget and >> budget narrative. >> >> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, for >> any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist >> organization, whether or not elected members of government. >> >> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be >> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information >> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be >> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award >> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the >> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance >> with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. >> >> This request for proposals will appear on >> *www.grantosolutions.gov*or >> *www.grants.gov* and DRL’s website, >> *www.state.gov/j/drl* . >> >> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* >> >> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please feel >> free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov* >> . Once the deadline has passed, State Department >> officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at embassies overseas - >> may not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire >> proposal review process is completed. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Stay connected with the State Department: > > -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------------- Postgraduate Associate & Access to Knowledge Fellow Information Society Project, Yale Law School T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 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 kichango at gmail.com Fri Nov 15 03:35:14 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:35:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [bit of news] on Brazilian announcement for the Summit In-Reply-To: References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> Message-ID: Good day (it's a new day here) and peace be upon you all (I'm told today is a holiday and from all the indications I've seen, i.e. text messages from mobile operators, it seems it is Peace Day. But if I got it wrong, then regardless...) On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:22 AM, McTim wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:44 PM, McTim wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Mawaki Chango > wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > >> > > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial > >> >> distinction between the technical community and civil society is > >> >> counterproductive in the long run. > >> > > >> > > >> > I have no intention of opposing your opposition, but is there any > >> > categorization scheme that is not artificial? > >> > >> > >> Good point, the MSism of Geneva is not the same multi-stakholderism of > >> the T&A (tho there are silos inside ICANN, which is regrettable and > >> hopefully fixable). I'm not sure we can fix the silos in Geneva. In > >> the IETF and the RIR system for example, everyone shows up (on lists > >> or in person) as themselves, not as part of an artificial grouping. > >> It is more of an egalitarian meritocracy, where everyone has time at > >> the microphone (or on unmoderated lists) to pitch defend or critique > >> ideas/policies/standards. > >> > >> > >> My understanding so far of > >> > what the technical community is about is that they are mostly > concerned > >> > with > >> > designing protocols, setting standards and handling the day to day > >> > operation > >> > of the networks, and sometimes coordinating all those moving parts. > >> > >> There is protocol and standards making and other policy processes, but > >> the T&A folk are largely administrative. There is of course research > >> and some networks being run, but the vast majority of Internetworks > >> are run by PS and some gov folks. Coordination, collaboration and > >> communication are a big part of what the T&A do, but they are largely > >> administrative. You should go to an AFRINIC meeting, it would be > >> highly instructive! > > > > > > Sounds to me like you and I discussed this once... like we both were at > the > > Maputo meeting back in 2004? or 03? > but didn't meet. Rings a bell? > > Maputo, 2005. Champions League Final week. > > Oh now, my memory is not even that good anymore!... At least as far as calendar goes. Then that was within a couple of months of me leaving Maputo where I was stationed for 2.5 years. I cannot afford out-of-pocket expenses for traveling to those meetings, and have been able to attend only the ones that were held in the country I happened to be staying in at the time (except for ICANN when I was on the GNSO council on behalf of NCUC, sponsored by the latter for most travels and by ICANN for a couple... So that was for the acknowledgement section.) Talking about building bridges, at the Abidjan meeting I intend to seek a more comprehensive conversation with Adiel (the AFRINIC Chief Exec) about how we can work together and do better for breeding (or maybe more modestly motivating or showing the way to) the next generation of social scientists in Africa to do research using Internet technical data available in and on the region. I'm not talking about one isolated researcher trying to get data, which can most probably be done over the net, but about creating the cultural and institutional pattern of associating the two communities with the specific intent to produce research outputs publishable in academic peer reviewed journals. This will entail various forms or levels of collaboration, including co-authorship if relevant. (Please don't tell me to join Afrinic policy list, because I'm already there. Will discuss my feedback on that with them, too.) Thanks Suresh for helping with the acronym and for your understanding. Best, Mawaki > > > I will probably attend upcoming Abidjan, will you? > > No, alas I will not. I am no longer in Africa in any case. > > > > > And instead of us guessing, what do you mean by T&A? > > > That Stakeholder group given to us by WSIS, the I*'s, Af*'s, etc, etc. > > >> > >> > >> I > >> > thought TC takes pride in being rather neutral (or a-political, if you > >> > will), just trying to make things work in the most efficient manner. > Do > >> > you > >> > see the same bunch of people spend time and other resources going > around > >> > to > >> > push for agendas for which the technology may already be there but > just > >> > the > >> > political will is lacking? > >> > >> yes, see DNSSEC and IPv6. > >> > >> Like, for instance, using some available > >> > technologies and other resources to make access more affordable. > >> > >> > >> Yes, see FIRE/FRIDA/ISIF Asia awards. > >> > >> > >> > >> You see no > >> > difference between the role that a group such as Access or APC would > >> > play in > >> > that regard and that of, say, an RIR? > >> > >> There is plenty of overlap in capacity building and other areas. > >> > >> > >> I'm just curious since you seem so > >> > vehement about any line of distinction. That said, it's also clear > that > >> > some > >> > of the i* orgs can play in both repertoires or combine both > dimensions. > >> > > >> > Besides... beware what you wish for because we could end up with just > >> > two > >> > stakeholder groups: government vs non-government/CS (the latter for > all > >> > of > >> > us.) > >> > >> > >> As you pointed out, these groupings are artificial and thrust upon us at > >> WSIS. > > > > > > Yes, but examples don't exhaust the question, which is: is there any > > distinctiveness between those two modus operandi and modes of practice, > even > > if there are instances of overlap in goals? I think yes. However... > >> > >> > >> The 1net initiative is not supposed to be T&A led, it is supposed to > >> be an umbrella for all to join. I am against further dividing the > >> world into us vs them in terms of planning for Brazil mtg. > > > > > > I would agree with this approach, instead, provided that it recognizes > the > > diversity of the voices (including groupings or sub-groupings) joining > in, > > in order to foster better environment for collaboration. > > Now, frankly, I don't know how CS was approached about that idea at > > start--assuming the explicit intent was what you describe above. For some > > reasons I cannot tell (I wasn't in Bali), the approach didn't seem to > have > > elicited a whole lot of trust (e.g., trust that the non-tech CS specific > > message will be given the proper attention or the weight it deserves.) > > Is there a message? > > And > > unless someone can prove me wrong, I just can't believe that that was > due to > > the bad faith of the CS participants involved. > > This process will require lots of good faith effort from everyone. It > is going from zero to some kind of meeting in 6 months with no > prepcom/processes in place. I'm not saying CS is showing bad faith, > but certainly I see lots of suspicion, even paranoia (BB talking about > closing off a list to talk strategy, so the "others" won't know our > cunning plans). > > > > > Whatever way we choose to proceed, I think the spirit of cooperation must > > remain. Diversity of voices (hopefully an orderly one) doesn't > necessarily > > have to be characterized as us vs them --and does not actually have to be > > that. That's all I can say... and hope for. > > One can only hope! > > -- > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 15 05:46:23 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:16:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons In-Reply-To: <08C399D9-7184-466C-A012-E32F08DEAFDD@glocom.ac.jp> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> <20131114115421.2478f561@quill> <08C399D9-7184-466C-A012-E32F08DEAFDD@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <5285FB7F.8050600@itforchange.net> I am completely unable to understand delaying the process of intimating to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS, will like to have direct liaison with Brazilian gov on the forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose, these are our four liaison persons. In fact there is every reason to send the proposed letter to Brazil gov *before* they make any definitive announcement about the proposed meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in which it will be organised, and so on... If IGC is to permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and contradictions, the world will simply move on without it. On the bestbits list I saw no opposition to sending this letter right away (including, quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and are also on the BB list) parminder On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time now. Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's plans are clear. > > Adam > > On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled >> with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the >> liaisons? >> >> If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, >> and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. >> >> There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed to >> express among the IGC members who participated in person in the >> relevant discussions in Bali. >> >> The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC >> Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online >> polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority >> of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter, >> such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the >> coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough >> consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed if >> desired.) >> >> But we should certainly discuss the matter first. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial >>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is >>> counterproductive in the long run. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> >>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: >>>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter >>>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not >>>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information >>>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job >>>>>>> here. >>>>>> >>>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that >>>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to >>>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go >>>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of >>>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into >>>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that >>>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If >>>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe >>>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At >>>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... >>>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps >>>> Looks good to me. >>>> >>>> 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 ca at cafonso.ca Fri Nov 15 05:47:47 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:47:47 -0200 Subject: [governance] EU Commissioner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5285FBD3.8010200@cafonso.ca> My thoughts on cloud computing (or as a Japanese executive said to us in a debate here in Rio, "cRowd computing" -- the Japanese idiom does not have the "L" as much as the Chinese does not have the "R") or cloud storage is the fashion of the day in the industry. It is nothing more than doing your processing and/or storage in remote machines, in the hands of people you have to trust. Today storage and processing power are within reach of most organizations, so the problem which would motivate moving your data to in effect unknown whereabouts (you do know where the physical servers are when you hire cloud services, don't you?) is cost of trusted computer systemns admins and cost of software licensing. The second can be solved by using FOSS. The first is the Achiles heel for most companies: today is probably the most expensive component for maintaining servers & systems in house. So you would trust more a remote server service (which you don't even know where it is located, who is managing, who has access to the passwords, how the links to these servers are effectively protected, is the cloud services owner doing data-mining on your data?, is the data stored in an encrypted form which guarantees outsiders or the local admin have no way to peek into it?, has the owner been forced by NSA or CGHQ to open up the servers' innards for them?, has the owner accepted payments from these agencies for opening things up? etc etc etc) than a local installation under your control (whatever the vulnerabilities of your control)? I would not. Just now M$ was forced to disclose to the EU that its pipes linking its cloud centers are not encrypted. OK, would it make any difference if they were encrypted but M$ has that contract with NSA which etc etc? Cloud c & s would make some good sense in a world of saints. But we live in a real world of demons, to put it in a Machiavellian form. Sorry, aunt Neelie... --c.a. On 11/14/2013 10:09 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:40 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > >> >> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-922_en.htm >> >> W >> >> When .eu was launched in 2005, it was touted as providing a trusted space. > Eight years later we get the same song with the cloud. > When will the nebula be launched :-)) > Louis > - - - > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Nov 15 05:49:21 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:49:21 -0200 Subject: [governance] EU Commissioner In-Reply-To: References: <02f601cee16b$be3ea590$3abbf0b0$@gmail.com> <032a01cee16f$87808790$968196b0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332200@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <1BF9AC6F-73FF-4A80-93C5-17C3C471B20E@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <5285FC31.6010801@cafonso.ca> Fascinating... this is becoming as reentrant as a bunch of dogs in a sexual dispute smelling each others' rears... Have fun! :) --c.a. On 11/15/2013 01:19 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > And in a similar vein, > > EU should create own spy agency, Reding says > http://euobserver.com/justice/121979 > > Bill > > > On Nov 15, 2013, at 12:01 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> >> On Nov 15, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> >>> FYI >>> >>> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-922_en.htm >>> >> >> Thanks Wolfgang. >> >> (Neelie Kroes talking about a cloud for europe -- cloud computing based on EU data protection law.) >> >> I send a note about this topic a while back, some research for the European Parliament: >> >> >> >> >>> On Oct 3, 2013, at 11:45 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >> >> ... >> >>>> strongly recommend people read Caspar Bowden's work for the European Parliament on PRISM and FISA. Bowden's been writing about the threat of FISA, etc. for some years, Snowden has made clear just how important his work is. >>>> >>>> Caspar Bowden speaking at the European Parliament Tuesday Sept 24, >>>> Study referred to in the presentation "The US surveillance programmes and their impact on EU citizens' fundamental rights" (need to remember it's all our rights, not just EU citizens). >>>> >>>> This earlier document "fighting cyber crime and protecting privacy in the cloud" very good, BBC article shows Bowden's foresight. >>>> >>>> The points he makes about an economic response (without some government regulated nationalist/regionalist policy) are sensible. >>>> >>>> And these: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Summary of Caspar, Jacob Applebaum, Bruce Schneier others speaking at an event in Lausanne on Monday also worth reading. >>>> >>>> Would be wonderful of the recent EU Parliament document linked above could be used as a briefing document for the Emerging Issues session in Bali. Unfortunately I don't think Caspar can attend the IGF. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>> W >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Fri Nov 15 06:05:34 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:05:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons In-Reply-To: <5285FB7F.8050600@itforchange.net> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> <20131114115421.2478f561@quill> <08C399D9-7184-466C-A012-E32F08DEAFDD@glocom.ac.jp> <5285FB7F.8050600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5285FFFE.5050203@cafonso.ca> Parm, we should have a letter ready, but we should also be careful. We do not know what the gov is up to at this point. The Nov.11 deadline has passed and there is no news on a new date. The actual proposal might lead us to make changes in the letter. As we say in Rio: "muita calma nessa hora!" Actually is about time you all try and start learning some Brazilian Portuguese :) I would recommend waiting for one more week and if there is no news then send the letter, making sure it first reaches the steering committee in BR. It would be politically bad if they learned about the letter through the press or our lists. []s fraternos --c.a. On 11/15/2013 08:46 AM, parminder wrote: > I am completely unable to understand delaying the process of intimating > to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS, will like to have direct liaison > with Brazilian gov on the forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose, > these are our four liaison persons. > > In fact there is every reason to send the proposed letter to Brazil gov > *before* they make any definitive announcement about the proposed > meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in which it will be > organised, and so on... > > If IGC is to permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and > contradictions, the world will simply move on without it. On the > bestbits list I saw no opposition to sending this letter right away > (including, quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and > are also on the BB list) > > parminder > > > On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time >> now. Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's >> plans are clear. >> >> Adam >> >> On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>> >>> Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled >>> with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the >>> liaisons? >>> >>> If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, >>> and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. >>> >>> There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed to >>> express among the IGC members who participated in person in the >>> relevant discussions in Bali. >>> >>> The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC >>> Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online >>> polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority >>> of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter, >>> such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the >>> coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough >>> consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed if >>> desired.) >>> >>> But we should certainly discuss the matter first. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial >>>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is >>>> counterproductive in the long run. >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: >>>>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter >>>>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not >>>>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information >>>>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job >>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that >>>>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to >>>>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go >>>>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of >>>>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into >>>>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that >>>>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If >>>>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe >>>>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At >>>>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... >>>>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps >>>>> Looks good to me. >>>>> >>>>> 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 pouzin at well.com Fri Nov 15 06:42:25 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:42:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] US industrial gangs in action - blown open by Wikileaks Message-ID: Reminder. Already signaled by Michael Gurstein. Wikileaks’ Release Of TPP Chapter On IP Blows Open Secret Trade Negotiation By William New, Intellectual Property Watch For years, the United States and partner governments have worked vigorously to keep the publics they represent from knowing what they are negotiating behind closed doors in the top-secret Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. But today’s Wikileaks release of the draft intellectual property chapter blew that up, confirming the fears of public interest groups that this is an agreement heavily weighted toward big industry interests. “If instituted, the TPP’s IP regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons,” WikiLeaks’ Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange said in a release. “If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs.” . . . http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/11/13/wikileaks-release-of-tpp-chapter-on-ip-blows-open-secret-trade-negotiation/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts https://wikileaks.org/tpp/pressrelease.html - - - Hopefully TTP will take SOPA's trail. The next battlefield, TTIP, shall put the EU Commission on a hot seat. Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Nov 15 07:03:44 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:03:44 -0200 Subject: [governance] US industrial gangs in action - blown open by Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52860DA0.7070907@cafonso.ca> Incredible, TPP recreates the same ACTA secretive plot played and replayed by supposedly democratic governments. Neelie Kroes wrote last year (according to Wikipedia): "We have recently seen how many thousands of people are willing to protest against rules which they see as constraining the openness and innovation of the Internet. This is a strong new political voice. And as a force for openness, I welcome it, even if I do not always agree with everything it says on every subject. We are now likely to be in a world without SOPA and without ACTA. Now we need to find solutions to make the Internet a place of freedom, openness, and innovation fit for all citizens, not just for the techno avant-garde." Unlikely, Neelie, unlikely... This is driven by a giant multisectoral trillion-dollar IPR machine led by the USA with heavy European involvement affecting nearly all of our rights worldwide, and it will not stop. In our region, Mexico, wishing to be nice in the picture with the USA and being more royalist than the king, proposes in the TPP that copyrights last for a century instead of 70 years after death of the author. Frankly, I do not understand Peru's Ollanta Humala involved in this. So it goes... --c.a. On 11/15/2013 09:42 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Reminder. Already signaled by Michael Gurstein. > > Wikileaks’ Release Of TPP Chapter On IP Blows Open Secret Trade Negotiation > > By William New, Intellectual Property Watch > > For years, the United States and partner governments have worked vigorously > to keep the publics they represent from knowing what they are negotiating > behind closed doors in the top-secret Trans-Pacific Partnership trade > agreement. But today’s Wikileaks release of the draft intellectual property > chapter blew that up, confirming the fears of public interest groups that > this is an agreement heavily weighted toward big industry interests. > > “If instituted, the TPP’s IP regime would trample over individual rights > and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and > creative commons,” WikiLeaks’ Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange said in a > release. “If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or > invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be > ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs.” > . . . > > http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/11/13/wikileaks-release-of-tpp-chapter-on-ip-blows-open-secret-trade-negotiation/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts > > https://wikileaks.org/tpp/pressrelease.html > - - - > > Hopefully TTP will take SOPA's trail. > > The next battlefield, > TTIP, > shall put the EU Commission on a hot seat. > > Louis > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu Fri Nov 15 07:22:49 2013 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu ('Yuliya Morenets') Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:22:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] International Institute on Cybersecurity for French Speaking countries In-Reply-To: Message-ID:  Dear all, Cybersecurity capacity building is an important aspect to ensure safer and resilient Internet ecosphere. The demand, in the developing countries, for a cybersecurity capacity building programs is high.  We are happy to announce, that ESIH and TaC have partnered to create the International Institute on Cybersecurity for French speaking countries to contribute to the fight against online threats in the French-speaking world. The Institute that gathers the expertise of the leading French-speaking experts in the field of Cybersecurity will be located in Haiti. The press release is attached.   Chers tous, Les programmes de renforcement des capacités représentent un aspect important qui permettrait de renforcer la sécurité sur l’Internet. Aujourd’hui, le besoin de tels programmes dans les pays en développement est important. Nous sommes heureux d’annoncer que ESIH et TaC se sont associés afin de créer l’Institut International sur la Cybersécurité pour les pays francophones dans l’objectif de contribuer à la lutte contre la cybercriminalité dans les parties francophones du monde.  L’Institut qui rassemble l’expertise des experts francophones reconnus dans le domaine de Cybersécurité sera établi en Haïti.  Le communiqué de presse est ci-joint. Yuliya Morenets (Ms) TaC-Together against Cybercrime International -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: press release ESIH_TaC_EN_F.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 556642 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: press release ESIH_TaC_FR_F.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 559232 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 15 07:28:43 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:58:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons In-Reply-To: <5285FFFE.5050203@cafonso.ca> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> <20131114115421.2478f561@quill> <08C399D9-7184-466C-A012-E32F08DEAFDD@glocom.ac.jp> <5285FB7F.8050600@itforchange.net> <5285FFFE.5050203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5286137B.4000409@itforchange.net> On Friday 15 November 2013 04:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Parm, we should have a letter ready, but we should also be careful. We > do not know what the gov is up to at this point. The Nov.11 deadline has > passed and there is no news on a new date. The actual proposal might > lead us to make changes in the letter. > > As we say in Rio: "muita calma nessa hora!" Actually is about time you > all try and start learning some Brazilian Portuguese :) > > I would recommend waiting for one more week and if there is no news then > send the letter, making sure it first reaches the steering committee in > BR. Sorry, Carlos, did not understand which steering committee you refer to here. If it is the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, sure we can send letter to both Brazilian gov and the Steering Committee. I still think we should send a letter to them right away with just the names of our 4 Brazilian liaisons .... I have a feeling that they (Brazilians) do not fully realise the feeling among the civil society for a direct liaison with Brazilian hosts, and not through the so called coalition of non gov stakeholders being presented.... Unless of course you know of something that I dont know, which is quite likely.. parminder > It would be politically bad if they learned about the letter through > the press or our lists. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 11/15/2013 08:46 AM, parminder wrote: >> I am completely unable to understand delaying the process of intimating >> to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS, will like to have direct liaison >> with Brazilian gov on the forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose, >> these are our four liaison persons. >> >> In fact there is every reason to send the proposed letter to Brazil gov >> *before* they make any definitive announcement about the proposed >> meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in which it will be >> organised, and so on... >> >> If IGC is to permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and >> contradictions, the world will simply move on without it. On the >> bestbits list I saw no opposition to sending this letter right away >> (including, quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and >> are also on the BB list) >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time >>> now. Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's >>> plans are clear. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>>> >>>> Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled >>>> with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the >>>> liaisons? >>>> >>>> If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, >>>> and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. >>>> >>>> There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed to >>>> express among the IGC members who participated in person in the >>>> relevant discussions in Bali. >>>> >>>> The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC >>>> Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online >>>> polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority >>>> of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter, >>>> such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the >>>> coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough >>>> consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed if >>>> desired.) >>>> >>>> But we should certainly discuss the matter first. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> >>>> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial >>>>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is >>>>> counterproductive in the long run. >>>>> >>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>> >>>>>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: >>>>>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter >>>>>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not >>>>>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information >>>>>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job >>>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that >>>>>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to >>>>>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go >>>>>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of >>>>>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into >>>>>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that >>>>>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If >>>>>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe >>>>>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At >>>>>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... >>>>>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps >>>>>> Looks good to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 iza at anr.org Fri Nov 15 07:29:47 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:29:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons In-Reply-To: <5285FFFE.5050203@cafonso.ca> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> <20131114115421.2478f561@quill> <08C399D9-7184-466C-A012-E32F08DEAFDD@glocom.ac.jp> <5285FB7F.8050600@itforchange.net> <5285FFFE.5050203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: +1 I do support the letter as drafted for now, but i agree that waiting for concrete information is the smart way to go at this point. Izumi 2013年11月15日金曜日 Carlos A. Afonso ca at cafonso.ca: > Parm, we should have a letter ready, but we should also be careful. We > do not know what the gov is up to at this point. The Nov.11 deadline has > passed and there is no news on a new date. The actual proposal might > lead us to make changes in the letter. > > As we say in Rio: "muita calma nessa hora!" Actually is about time you > all try and start learning some Brazilian Portuguese :) > > I would recommend waiting for one more week and if there is no news then > send the letter, making sure it first reaches the steering committee in > BR. It would be politically bad if they learned about the letter through > the press or our lists. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 11/15/2013 08:46 AM, parminder wrote: > > I am completely unable to understand delaying the process of intimating > > to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS, will like to have direct liaison > > with Brazilian gov on the forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose, > > these are our four liaison persons. > > > > In fact there is every reason to send the proposed letter to Brazil gov > > *before* they make any definitive announcement about the proposed > > meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in which it will be > > organised, and so on... > > > > If IGC is to permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and > > contradictions, the world will simply move on without it. On the > > bestbits list I saw no opposition to sending this letter right away > > (including, quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and > > are also on the BB list) > > > > parminder > > > > > > On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time > >> now. Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's > >> plans are clear. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> > >>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] > >>> > >>> Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled > >>> with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the > >>> liaisons? > >>> > >>> If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, > >>> and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. > >>> > >>> There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed to > >>> express among the IGC members who participated in person in the > >>> relevant discussions in Bali. > >>> > >>> The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC > >>> Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online > >>> polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority > >>> of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter, > >>> such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the > >>> coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough > >>> consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed > if > >>> desired.) > >>> > >>> But we should certainly discuss the matter first. > >>> > >>> Greetings, > >>> Norbert > >>> > >>> > >>> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >>> > >>>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial > >>>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is > >>>> counterproductive in the long run. > >>>> > >>>> --srs (iPad) > >>>> > >>>>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: > >>>>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter > >>>>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not > >>>>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information > >>>>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job > >>>>>>>> here. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that > >>>>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to > >>>>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go > >>>>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of > >>>>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into > >>>>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that > >>>>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If > -- >> 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 pimienta at funredes.org Fri Nov 15 08:09:21 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:09:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] International Institute on Cybersecurity for French Speaking countries In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bravo! Congratulations to our friends from Haiti and especially to Patrick Attié whose constructive energy is impressively inexhaustible. I wonder if the initiative should not take the opportunity of the today context to educate, in parallel, on privacy matters... May be it would read still better as "International Institute on security and privacy in cyberspace" Mes deux gourdes :-) -- 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Fri Nov 15 08:57:20 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:57:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] EU Commissioner Message-ID: <1511164291.15853.1384523840795.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k25> dear carlos I do share all your arguments against cloud computing. I'd add another one, based on technical and networking aspects of the "cloud", which is particularly relevant -although not solely- for developing countries. It concerns network reliability which conditions the ability of any user for accessing his cloud stored data and tools. In Europe -the realm of "aunt Nelly"- network reliability (availability) is generally at a high standard. However even some well-known legacy networks were suffering severe breakdowns in the recent past (BT, SFR, FT, among others). A complementary aspect of this argument is the QoS that has to be at an appropriate standard over the time for guarantiing a regular dataflow between the user and the cloud server(s). But both of these issues are very problematic in DCs, and I specially consider Africa. In these countries electricity supply is poor -when it exists- and this interferes severely with both network availability and server availability. These arguments are generally ignored by those enthousiastic folks that officiate in so-called high level sessions of the WSIS Fora; probably do they have some reasons ... Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 15/11/13 11:48 > De : "Carlos A. Afonso" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Louis Pouzin (well)" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] EU Commissioner > > My thoughts on cloud computing (or as a Japanese executive said to us in > a debate here in Rio, "cRowd computing" -- the Japanese idiom does not > have the "L" as much as the Chinese does not have the "R") or cloud > storage is the fashion of the day in the industry. It is nothing more > than doing your processing and/or storage in remote machines, in the > hands of people you have to trust. > > Today storage and processing power are within reach of most > organizations, so the problem which would motivate moving your data to > in effect unknown whereabouts (you do know where the physical servers > are when you hire cloud services, don't you?) is cost of trusted > computer systemns admins and cost of software licensing. The second can > be solved by using FOSS. The first is the Achiles heel for most > companies: today is probably the most expensive component for > maintaining servers & systems in house. > > So you would trust more a remote server service (which you don't even > know where it is located, who is managing, who has access to the > passwords, how the links to these servers are effectively protected, is > the cloud services owner doing data-mining on your data?, is the data > stored in an encrypted form which guarantees outsiders or the local > admin have no way to peek into it?, has the owner been forced by NSA or > CGHQ to open up the servers' innards for them?, has the owner accepted > payments from these agencies for opening things up? etc etc etc) than a > local installation under your control (whatever the vulnerabilities of > your control)? I would not. > > Just now M$ was forced to disclose to the EU that its pipes linking its > cloud centers are not encrypted. OK, would it make any difference if > they were encrypted but M$ has that contract with NSA which etc etc? > > Cloud c & s would make some good sense in a world of saints. But we live > in a real world of demons, to put it in a Machiavellian form. > > Sorry, aunt Neelie... > > --c.a. > > On 11/14/2013 10:09 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:40 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > > >> > >> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-922_en.htm > >> > >> W > >> > >> When .eu was launched in 2005, it was touted as providing a trusted space. > > Eight years later we get the same song with the cloud. > > When will the nebula be launched :-)) > > Louis > > - - - > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Nov 15 09:20:45 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:20:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] US industrial gangs in action - blown open by Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <52860DA0.7070907@cafonso.ca> References: <52860DA0.7070907@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: At 13:03 15/11/2013, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >Incredible, TPP recreates the same ACTA secretive plot? Incredible? Do you think Fadi/Dilma proceed differently? For millenaries the dominants (Govs, Business, Multilateral) have dominated the" others". The change is that due to their numbers and the internet, these "others" become more touchy and dangerous on a world wide basis. The WSIS decorously called them the Civil Society. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Nov 15 09:55:55 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:55:55 -0300 Subject: [governance] EU Commissioner In-Reply-To: <5285FC31.6010801@cafonso.ca> References: <02f601cee16b$be3ea590$3abbf0b0$@gmail.com> <032a01cee16f$87808790$968196b0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332200@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <1BF9AC6F-73FF-4A80-93C5-17C3C471B20E@glocom.ac.jp> <5285FC31.6010801@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: It will be mildly ironic if among the main results of the Snowden revelations are big boosts to the security-related industry, ICT spending more generally, and EC institution building. Maybe a good time to invest in Brussels real estate :-) Bill On Nov 15, 2013, at 7:49 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Fascinating... this is becoming as reentrant as a bunch of dogs in a > sexual dispute smelling each others' rears... > > Have fun! :) > > --c.a. > > On 11/15/2013 01:19 AM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> And in a similar vein, >> >> EU should create own spy agency, Reding says >> http://euobserver.com/justice/121979 >> >> Bill >> >> >> On Nov 15, 2013, at 12:01 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> >>> On Nov 15, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> FYI >>>> >>>> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-922_en.htm >>>> >>> >>> Thanks Wolfgang. >>> >>> (Neelie Kroes talking about a cloud for europe -- cloud computing based on EU data protection law.) >>> >>> I send a note about this topic a while back, some research for the European Parliament: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 3, 2013, at 11:45 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>> >>> ... >>> >>>>> strongly recommend people read Caspar Bowden's work for the European Parliament on PRISM and FISA. Bowden's been writing about the threat of FISA, etc. for some years, Snowden has made clear just how important his work is. >>>>> >>>>> Caspar Bowden speaking at the European Parliament Tuesday Sept 24, >>>>> Study referred to in the presentation "The US surveillance programmes and their impact on EU citizens' fundamental rights" (need to remember it's all our rights, not just EU citizens). >>>>> >>>>> This earlier document "fighting cyber crime and protecting privacy in the cloud" very good, BBC article shows Bowden's foresight. >>>>> >>>>> The points he makes about an economic response (without some government regulated nationalist/regionalist policy) are sensible. >>>>> >>>>> And these: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Summary of Caspar, Jacob Applebaum, Bruce Schneier others speaking at an event in Lausanne on Monday also worth reading. >>>>> >>>>> Would be wonderful of the recent EU Parliament document linked above could be used as a briefing document for the Emerging Issues session in Bali. Unfortunately I don't think Caspar can attend the IGF. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> W >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 kichango at gmail.com Fri Nov 15 10:51:15 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:51:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons In-Reply-To: <5285FFFE.5050203@cafonso.ca> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> <20131114115421.2478f561@quill> <08C399D9-7184-466C-A012-E32F08DEAFDD@glocom.ac.jp> <5285FB7F.8050600@itforchange.net> <5285FFFE.5050203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Oi, o meu irmao! [c.a., sorry I only know of the Mozambican Portuguese which, as I was laughed at in Bahia, was more like the Portuguese Portuguese :)] Caution to wait would make more sense to me if we knew the specific aspects of the summit item to be addressed in the BR govt's awaited statement and could evaluate the timing of this letter against that backdrop. Does anyone know? If so, is there a possible conflict with the content of the CS letter? If not, are we sure BR govt is not talking with whichever stakeholder has showed up (or knocked at their door) with some clear and serious ideas in order to work out precisely something for the content of the expected statement? Or that it might be made on assumptions that we will not feel comfortable with later on? Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand well what the risks are vis-a-vis the BR govt for sending such letter even before their statement. I do understand the rationale of the other objection already discussed here re. stakeholder partition. But from the standpoint of someone who doesn't share that other objection, I'm just curious where you might see the risks taking into account the content of the letter. In any event, I rest my case. Abraços Mawaki On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Parm, we should have a letter ready, but we should also be careful. We > do not know what the gov is up to at this point. The Nov.11 deadline has > passed and there is no news on a new date. The actual proposal might > lead us to make changes in the letter. > > As we say in Rio: "muita calma nessa hora!" Actually is about time you > all try and start learning some Brazilian Portuguese :) > > I would recommend waiting for one more week and if there is no news then > send the letter, making sure it first reaches the steering committee in > BR. It would be politically bad if they learned about the letter through > the press or our lists. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 11/15/2013 08:46 AM, parminder wrote: > > I am completely unable to understand delaying the process of intimating > > to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS, will like to have direct liaison > > with Brazilian gov on the forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose, > > these are our four liaison persons. > > > > In fact there is every reason to send the proposed letter to Brazil gov > > *before* they make any definitive announcement about the proposed > > meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in which it will be > > organised, and so on... > > > > If IGC is to permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and > > contradictions, the world will simply move on without it. On the > > bestbits list I saw no opposition to sending this letter right away > > (including, quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and > > are also on the BB list) > > > > parminder > > > > > > On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time > >> now. Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's > >> plans are clear. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> > >>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] > >>> > >>> Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled > >>> with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the > >>> liaisons? > >>> > >>> If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, > >>> and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. > >>> > >>> There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed to > >>> express among the IGC members who participated in person in the > >>> relevant discussions in Bali. > >>> > >>> The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC > >>> Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online > >>> polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority > >>> of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter, > >>> such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the > >>> coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough > >>> consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed > if > >>> desired.) > >>> > >>> But we should certainly discuss the matter first. > >>> > >>> Greetings, > >>> Norbert > >>> > >>> > >>> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >>> > >>>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial > >>>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is > >>>> counterproductive in the long run. > >>>> > >>>> --srs (iPad) > >>>> > >>>>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: > >>>>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter > >>>>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not > >>>>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information > >>>>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job > >>>>>>>> here. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that > >>>>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to > >>>>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go > >>>>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of > >>>>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into > >>>>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that > >>>>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If > >>>>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe > >>>>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At > >>>>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... > >>>>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps > >>>>> Looks good to me. > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Nov 15 11:14:24 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:14:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] International Institute on Cybersecurity for French Speaking countries In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 13:22 15/11/2013, 'Yuliya Morenets' wrote: > >Dear all, >Cybersecurity capacity building is an important aspect to ensure >safer and resilient Internet ecosphere. The demand, in the >developing countries, for a cybersecurity capacity building programs is high. So it is everywhere. We all are digitally vulnerable by politicaly demanded and technically applied restrictions in network design. >We are happy to announce, that ESIH and TaC have partnered to create >the International Institute on Cybersecurity for French speaking >countries to contribute to the fight against online threats in the >French-speaking world. > >The Institute that gathers the expertise of the leading >French-speaking experts in the field of Cybersecurity will be located in Haiti. Certainly interested to help. Please let know when the site is started. This shows why technical issues decide of the Human Rights enforcement, and why we cannot permit them to be hijacked by commercial and criminal interests even to facilitate the US (and others) governemental digital protection umbrella. The hardening of the users' presence certainly calls for a different and more complex cyberspying/war doctrine, but everyone should benefit from it. Question: is this Institute to be backed by FLOSS developers and protection solutions planned to be discussed, developped and deployed? I am considering a FLOSS oriented common interest economy license (http://intlnet.org/wiki/Economie_libre_d%27inter%C3%AAt_commun_/_Common_interest_free_economy) that would permit commercial use if benefits were to partly fund further common interest R&D. I would like to initiate a French speaking think-tank on the issue. And bring a first important project able to help the Fund. Best jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Nov 15 11:14:03 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:14:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] EU Commissioner In-Reply-To: References: <02f601cee16b$be3ea590$3abbf0b0$@gmail.com> <032a01cee16f$87808790$968196b0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332200@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <1BF9AC6F-73FF-4A80-93C5-17C3C471B20E@glocom.ac.jp> <5285FC31.6010801@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: At 15:55 15/11/2013, William Drake wrote: >It will be mildly ironic if among the main results of the Snowden >revelations are big boosts to the security-related industry, ICT >spending more generally, and EC institution building. Maybe a good >time to invest in Brussels real estate :-) William, what Snowden has shown is that intellition (intelligence in big-data utilisation) had become mature. Let not confond PRISM as an intelligent system, everyone (including you and me) needs for personal protection (contributions are welcome on: http://intlnet.org/wiki/Economie_libre_d%27inter%C3%AAt_commun_/_Common_interest_free_economy) and the more or less muscular ways to capture data. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Fri Nov 15 11:25:09 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:25:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] International Institute on Cybersecurity for French Speaking countries In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Kudos and long live to the new institute. Please keep us updated in due course about your programs and on the way you intend to operate with interested audiences and partners, notably in Africa. Cheers, Mawaki On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:14 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 13:22 15/11/2013, 'Yuliya Morenets' wrote: > >>  >> >> Dear all, >> Cybersecurity capacity building is an important aspect to ensure safer >> and resilient Internet ecosphere. The demand, in the developing countries, >> for a cybersecurity capacity building programs is high. >> > > So it is everywhere. We all are digitally vulnerable by politicaly > demanded and technically applied restrictions in network design. > > > We are happy to announce, that ESIH and TaC have partnered to create the >> International Institute on Cybersecurity for French speaking countries to >> contribute to the fight against online threats in the French-speaking world. >> >> The Institute that gathers the expertise of the leading French-speaking >> experts in the field of Cybersecurity will be located in Haiti. >> > > Certainly interested to help. Please let know when the site is started. > This shows why technical issues decide of the Human Rights enforcement, and > why we cannot permit them to be hijacked by commercial and criminal > interests even to facilitate the US (and others) governemental digital > protection umbrella. The hardening of the users' presence certainly calls > for a different and more complex cyberspying/war doctrine, but everyone > should benefit from it. > > Question: is this Institute to be backed by FLOSS developers and > protection solutions planned to be discussed, developped and deployed? > > I am considering a FLOSS oriented common interest economy license ( > http://intlnet.org/wiki/Economie_libre_d%27inter%C3% > AAt_commun_/_Common_interest_free_economy) that would permit commercial > use if benefits were to partly fund further common interest R&D. I would > like to initiate a French speaking think-tank on the issue. And bring a > first important project able to help the Fund. > > Best > jfc > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Nov 15 12:18:39 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:18:39 -0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons Message-ID: I refer to the summit's steering committee nominated by the BR prez after she met Fadi and announced the meeting. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: parminder Date: 15-11-2013 10:28 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons On Friday 15 November 2013 04:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Parm, we should have a letter ready, but we should also be careful. We > do not know what the gov is up to at this point. The Nov.11 deadline has > passed and there is no news on a new date. The actual proposal might > lead us to make changes in the letter. > > As we say in Rio: "muita calma nessa hora!" Actually is about time you > all try and start learning some Brazilian Portuguese :) > > I would recommend waiting for one more week and if there is no news then > send the letter, making sure it first reaches the steering committee in > BR. Sorry, Carlos, did not understand which steering committee you refer to here. If it is the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, sure we can send letter to both Brazilian gov and the Steering Committee. I still think we should send a letter to them right away with just the names of our 4 Brazilian liaisons .... I have a feeling that they (Brazilians) do not fully realise the feeling among the civil society for a direct liaison with Brazilian hosts, and not through the so called coalition of non gov stakeholders being presented.... Unless of course you know of something that I dont know, which is quite likely.. parminder > It would be politically bad if they learned about the letter through > the press or our lists. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 11/15/2013 08:46 AM, parminder wrote: >> I am completely unable to understand delaying the process of intimating >> to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS, will like to have direct liaison >> with Brazilian gov on the forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose, >> these are our four liaison persons. >> >> In fact there is every reason to send the  proposed letter to Brazil gov >> *before* they make any definitive announcement about the proposed >> meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in which it will be >> organised, and so on... >> >> If IGC is to permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and >> contradictions, the world will simply move on without it. On the >> bestbits list I saw no opposition to sending this letter right away >> (including, quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and >> are also on the BB list) >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time >>> now.  Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's >>> plans are clear. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>>> >>>> Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled >>>> with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the >>>> liaisons? >>>> >>>> If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, >>>> and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. >>>> >>>> There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed to >>>> express among the IGC members who participated in person in the >>>> relevant discussions in Bali. >>>> >>>> The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC >>>> Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online >>>> polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority >>>> of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter, >>>> such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the >>>> coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough >>>> consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed if >>>> desired.) >>>> >>>> But we should certainly discuss the matter first. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> >>>> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial >>>>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is >>>>> counterproductive in the long run. >>>>> >>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>> >>>>>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: >>>>>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter >>>>>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not >>>>>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information >>>>>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job >>>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that >>>>>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to >>>>>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go >>>>>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of >>>>>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into >>>>>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that >>>>>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If >>>>>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe >>>>>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At >>>>>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... >>>>>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps >>>>>> Looks good to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 ca at cafonso.ca Fri Nov 15 12:20:18 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:20:18 -0200 Subject: [governance] EU Commissioner Message-ID: Good points! ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK Date: 15-11-2013 11:57 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"CarlosA.Afonso" ,LouisPouzinwell Subject: Re: [governance] EU Commissioner   dear carlos    I do share all your arguments against cloud computing. I'd add another one, based on technical and networking aspects of the "cloud", which is particularly relevant -although not solely- for developing countries. It concerns network reliability which conditions the ability of any user for accessing his cloud stored data and tools. In Europe -the realm of "aunt Nelly"- network reliability (availability) is generally at a high standard. However even some well-known legacy networks were suffering severe breakdowns in the recent past (BT, SFR, FT, among others).  A complementary aspect of this argument is the QoS that has to be at an appropriate standard over the time for guarantiing a regular dataflow between the user and the cloud server(s).   But both of these issues are very problematic in DCs, and I specially consider Africa. In these countries electricity supply is poor -when it exists- and this interferes severely with both network availability and server availability. These arguments are generally ignored by those enthousiastic folks that officiate in so-called high level sessions of the WSIS Fora; probably do they have some reasons ...   Best regards   Jean-Louis Fullsack     > Message du 15/11/13 11:48 > De : "Carlos A. Afonso" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Louis Pouzin (well)" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] EU Commissioner > > My thoughts on cloud computing (or as a Japanese executive said to us in > a debate here in Rio, "cRowd computing" -- the Japanese idiom does not > have the "L" as much as the Chinese does not have the "R") or cloud > storage is the fashion of the day in the industry. It is nothing more > than doing your processing and/or storage in remote machines, in the > hands of people you have to trust. > > Today storage and processing power are within reach of most > organizations, so the problem which would motivate moving your data to > in effect unknown whereabouts (you do know where the physical servers > are when you hire cloud services, don't you?) is cost of trusted > computer systemns admins and cost of software licensing. The second can > be solved by using FOSS. The first is the Achiles heel for most > companies: today is probably the most expensive component for > maintaining servers & systems in house. > > So you would trust more a remote server service (which you don't even > know where it is located, who is managing, who has access to the > passwords, how the links to these servers are effectively protected, is > the cloud services owner doing data-mining on your data?, is the data > stored in an encrypted form which guarantees outsiders or the local > admin have no way to peek into it?, has the owner been forced by NSA or > CGHQ to open up the servers' innards for them?, has the owner accepted > payments from these agencies for opening things up? etc etc etc) than a > local installation under your control (whatever the vulnerabilities of > your control)? I would not. > > Just now M$ was forced to disclose to the EU that its pipes linking its > cloud centers are not encrypted. OK, would it make any difference if > they were encrypted but M$ has that contract with NSA which etc etc? > > Cloud c & s would make some good sense in a world of saints. But we live > in a real world of demons, to put it in a Machiavellian form. > > Sorry, aunt Neelie... > > --c.a. > > On 11/14/2013 10:09 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:40 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > > >> > >> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-922_en.htm > >> > >> W > >> > >> When .eu was launched in 2005, it was touted as providing a trusted space. > > Eight years later we get the same song with the cloud. > > When will the nebula be launched :-)) > > Louis > > - - - > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Nov 15 12:25:52 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:25:52 -0200 Subject: [governance] EU Commissioner Message-ID: <29bohvjkuv3scri0t3v7rnt1.1384536285486@email.android.com> A re-enactment of the "year 2000" scare? ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: William Drake Date: 15-11-2013 12:55 (GMT-03:00) To: Governance ,"Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: Adam Peake ,"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Subject: Re: [governance] EU Commissioner It will be mildly ironic if among the main results of the Snowden revelations are big boosts to the security-related industry, ICT spending more generally, and EC institution building.  Maybe a good time to invest in Brussels real estate :-) Bill On Nov 15, 2013, at 7:49 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Fascinating... this is becoming as reentrant as a bunch of dogs in a > sexual dispute smelling each others' rears... > > Have fun! :) > > --c.a. > > On 11/15/2013 01:19 AM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> And in a similar vein, >> >> EU should create own spy agency, Reding says >> http://euobserver.com/justice/121979 >> >> Bill >> >> >> On Nov 15, 2013, at 12:01 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> >>> On Nov 15, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> FYI >>>> >>>> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-922_en.htm >>>> >>> >>> Thanks Wolfgang. >>> >>> (Neelie Kroes talking about a cloud for europe -- cloud computing based on EU data protection law.) >>> >>> I send a note about this topic a while back, some research for the European Parliament: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 3, 2013, at 11:45 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>> >>> ... >>> >>>>> strongly recommend people read Caspar Bowden's work for the European Parliament on PRISM and FISA.  Bowden's been writing about the threat of FISA, etc. for some years, Snowden has made clear just how important his work is. >>>>> >>>>> Caspar Bowden speaking at the European Parliament Tuesday Sept 24, >>>>>   Study referred to in the presentation "The US surveillance programmes and their impact on EU citizens' fundamental rights"   (need to remember it's all our rights, not just EU citizens). >>>>> >>>>> This earlier document "fighting cyber crime and protecting privacy in the cloud" very good, BBC article shows Bowden's foresight. >>>>> >>>>> The points he makes about an economic response (without some government regulated nationalist/regionalist policy) are sensible. >>>>> >>>>> And these: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Summary of Caspar, Jacob Applebaum, Bruce Schneier others speaking at an event in Lausanne on Monday also worth reading. >>>>> >>>>> Would be wonderful of the recent EU Parliament document linked above could be used as a briefing document for the Emerging Issues session in Bali.  Unfortunately I don't think Caspar can attend the IGF. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> W >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>   governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>   http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Nov 15 12:28:05 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:28:05 -0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons Message-ID: Minha sugestão é esperar mais uma semana. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Mawaki Chango Date: 15-11-2013 13:51 (GMT-03:00) To: Internet Governance ,"Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: parminder Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons Oi, o meu irmao! [c.a., sorry I only know of the Mozambican Portuguese which, as I was laughed at in Bahia, was more like the Portuguese Portuguese :)] Caution to wait would make more sense to me if we knew the specific aspects of the summit item to be addressed in the BR govt's awaited statement and could evaluate the timing of this letter against that backdrop. Does anyone know? If so, is there a possible conflict with the content of the CS letter? If not, are we sure BR govt is not talking with whichever stakeholder has showed up (or knocked at their door) with some clear and serious ideas in order to work out precisely something for the content of the expected statement? Or that it might be made on assumptions that we will not feel comfortable with later on? Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand well what the risks are vis-a-vis the BR govt for sending such letter even before their statement. I do understand the rationale of the other objection already discussed here re. stakeholder partition. But from the standpoint of someone who doesn't share that other objection, I'm just curious where you might see the risks taking into account the content of the letter. In any event, I rest my case. Abraços Mawaki    On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Parm, we should have a letter ready, but we should also be careful. We do not know what the gov is up to at this point. The Nov.11 deadline has passed and there is no news on a new date. The actual proposal might lead us to make changes in the letter. As we say in Rio: "muita calma nessa hora!" Actually is about time you all try and start learning some Brazilian Portuguese :) I would recommend waiting for one more week and if there is no news then send the letter, making sure it first reaches the steering committee in BR. It would be politically bad if they learned about the letter through the press or our lists. []s fraternos --c.a. On 11/15/2013 08:46 AM, parminder wrote: > I am completely unable to understand delaying the process of intimating > to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS, will like to have direct liaison > with Brazilian gov on the forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose, > these are our four liaison persons. > > In fact there is every reason to send the  proposed letter to Brazil gov > *before* they make any definitive announcement about the proposed > meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in which it will be > organised, and so on... > > If IGC is to permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and > contradictions, the world will simply move on without it. On the > bestbits list I saw no opposition to sending this letter right away > (including, quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and > are also on the BB list) > > parminder > > > On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time >> now.  Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's >> plans are clear. >> >> Adam >> >> On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>> >>> Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled >>> with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the >>> liaisons? >>> >>> If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, >>> and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. >>> >>> There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed to >>> express among the IGC members who participated in person in the >>> relevant discussions in Bali. >>> >>> The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC >>> Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online >>> polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority >>> of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter, >>> such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the >>> coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough >>> consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed if >>> desired.) >>> >>> But we should certainly discuss the matter first. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial >>>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is >>>> counterproductive in the long run. >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: >>>>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter >>>>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not >>>>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information >>>>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job >>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that >>>>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to >>>>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go >>>>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of >>>>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into >>>>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that >>>>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If >>>>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe >>>>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At >>>>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... >>>>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps >>>>> Looks good to me. >>>>> >>>>> 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 15 13:21:48 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 23:51:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] US industrial gangs in action - blown open by Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <52860DA0.7070907@cafonso.ca> References: <52860DA0.7070907@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5286663C.3040201@itforchange.net> When I hear a lot of talk about the need of distributed IG under the enhanced cooperation (EC) rubric I really do not fully understand what is meant. The only legitimate distributed IG I know is of technical governance of the Internet - about which neither I have much problem with the status quo nor tunis agenda admits it under EC rubris. EC is about two things - 'oversight issue' and general public policy issues related to the Internet, neither of which is currently decentralised or distributed, nor I have heard any mechanism being suggested for decentralised/ distributed IG in these areas..... This really confuses me, especially since so many civil society contributions against WGEC questionnaire has suggested distributed governance without clarity about what it is really. Now, the only sense in which I can see IG related to larger public policy issues being distributed is in it taking place in processes like TPP below, or in London-Budapest- Seoul cyber conference series, OECD, CoE and so on..... And that variety is of course not at all globally legitimate - apart from being closed, non transparent, non multistakeholder and so on... I think there is a need to first bring more clarity to the terms of debate of this important discussion on the needed changes in global IG... parminder On Friday 15 November 2013 05:33 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Incredible, TPP recreates the same ACTA secretive plot played and > replayed by supposedly democratic governments. Neelie Kroes wrote last > year (according to Wikipedia): > > "We have recently seen how many thousands of people are willing to > protest against rules which they see as constraining the openness and > innovation of the Internet. This is a strong new political voice. And as > a force for openness, I welcome it, even if I do not always agree with > everything it says on every subject. We are now likely to be in a world > without SOPA and without ACTA. Now we need to find solutions to make the > Internet a place of freedom, openness, and innovation fit for all > citizens, not just for the techno avant-garde." > > Unlikely, Neelie, unlikely... This is driven by a giant multisectoral > trillion-dollar IPR machine led by the USA with heavy European > involvement affecting nearly all of our rights worldwide, and it will > not stop. > > In our region, Mexico, wishing to be nice in the picture with the USA > and being more royalist than the king, proposes in the TPP that > copyrights last for a century instead of 70 years after death of the author. > > Frankly, I do not understand Peru's Ollanta Humala involved in this. > > So it goes... > > --c.a. > > On 11/15/2013 09:42 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> Reminder. Already signaled by Michael Gurstein. >> >> Wikileaks’ Release Of TPP Chapter On IP Blows Open Secret Trade Negotiation >> >> By William New, Intellectual Property Watch >> >> For years, the United States and partner governments have worked vigorously >> to keep the publics they represent from knowing what they are negotiating >> behind closed doors in the top-secret Trans-Pacific Partnership trade >> agreement. But today’s Wikileaks release of the draft intellectual property >> chapter blew that up, confirming the fears of public interest groups that >> this is an agreement heavily weighted toward big industry interests. >> >> “If instituted, the TPP’s IP regime would trample over individual rights >> and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and >> creative commons,” WikiLeaks’ Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange said in a >> release. “If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or >> invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be >> ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs.” >> . . . >> >> http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/11/13/wikileaks-release-of-tpp-chapter-on-ip-blows-open-secret-trade-negotiation/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts >> >> https://wikileaks.org/tpp/pressrelease.html >> - - - >> >> Hopefully TTP will take SOPA's trail. >> >> The next battlefield, >> TTIP, >> shall put the EU Commission on a hot seat. >> >> 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Nov 15 13:28:06 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:28:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] new paper on Multistakeholder Internet Governance Message-ID: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2354377 DeNardis, Dr. Laura and Raymond, Mark, Thinking Clearly About Multistakeholder Internet Governance (November 14, 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract= *Abstract: * Efforts to study and practice Internet governance start, virtually without exception, from the premise that the Internet is governed by an innovative, unusual (perhaps unique) ‘multistakeholder’ model. Preserving that model is a primary goal for the broader Internet community as well as for many governments, though not for all. Viewing multistakeholderism as a teleological goal for Internet governance creates several problems. First, multistakeholderism is often elevated as a value in itself rather than as a possible approach to meeting more salient public interest objectives such as preserving Internet interoperability, stability, security, and openness. Second, multistakeholder governance may not be appropriate in every functional area of Internet governance. Internet coordination is not a monolithic practice but rather a multilayered series of tasks of which some are appropriately relegated to the private sector, some the purview of traditional nation-state governance or international treaty negotiations, and some more appropriately multistakeholder. It is a misnomer to speak not only of multistakeholder governance but also of Internet governance as a single thing. The concept of multistakeholderism can also serve as a proxy for broader political struggles or be deployed as an impediment to the types of Internet coordination necessary to promote conditions of responsible governance. For example, governments with repressive information policies can advocate for top-down and formalized multistakeholderism to gain additional power in areas in which they have traditionally not had jurisdiction. These types of efforts can result in multilateral rather than multistakeholder approaches with non-governmental actors limited from participating in formal deliberations and lacking any meaningful voting power. Alternatively, companies and other actors with vested interests in current governance arrangements can deploy multistakeholderism in a manner either meant to exclude new entrants (whether public or private) with incommensurate interests and values or to preserve incumbent market advantage. This paper suggests that multistakeholderism should not be viewed as a value in itself applied homogenously to all Internet governance functions. Rather, the appropriate approach to responsible Internet governance requires determining what types of administration are optimal for promoting a balance of interoperability, innovation, free expression and operational stability in any particular functional and political context. Doing so requires conceptual and theoretical tools that have not yet been developed. Accordingly, the paper proceeds in three parts. First, it presents a more granular taxonomy and understanding of Internet governance functions – differentiating between, for example, cybersecurity governance, Internet standards setting, and the policymaking function of private information intermediaries. Second, it performs the same task of disaggregation with respect to multistakeholderism. It presents distinct varieties of multistakeholder Internet governance (which differ according to the varieties of actors involved and the nature of authority relations between them) and sets these arrangements in a broader context of modalities for accomplishing global governance in other issue areas. Such an approach contributes both to the study and practice of Internet governance, and to scholarship in International Relations and global governance. -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Nov 15 13:40:45 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 03:40:45 +0900 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons In-Reply-To: <5285FFFE.5050203@cafonso.ca> References: <52844AFB.4080000@itforchange.net> <528479E0.706@ciroap.org> <20131114105940.78057396@quill> <82996675-0D34-4C64-82A3-003A8F3A007B@hserus.net> <20131114115421.2478f561@quill> <08C399D9-7184-466C-A012-E32F08DEAFDD@glocom.ac.jp> <5285FB7F.8050600@itforchange.net> <5285FFFE.5050203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I agree with Carlos. Seems to be a bit of delay with the announcement. The 4 volunteers are working, and were grateful for their efforts: for the time being all's good. So let's wait and see what comes up and respond when we know what's going on. Adam On Nov 15, 2013, at 8:05 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Parm, we should have a letter ready, but we should also be careful. We > do not know what the gov is up to at this point. The Nov.11 deadline has > passed and there is no news on a new date. The actual proposal might > lead us to make changes in the letter. > > As we say in Rio: "muita calma nessa hora!" Actually is about time you > all try and start learning some Brazilian Portuguese :) > > I would recommend waiting for one more week and if there is no news then > send the letter, making sure it first reaches the steering committee in > BR. It would be politically bad if they learned about the letter through > the press or our lists. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 11/15/2013 08:46 AM, parminder wrote: >> I am completely unable to understand delaying the process of intimating >> to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS, will like to have direct liaison >> with Brazilian gov on the forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose, >> these are our four liaison persons. >> >> In fact there is every reason to send the proposed letter to Brazil gov >> *before* they make any definitive announcement about the proposed >> meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in which it will be >> organised, and so on... >> >> If IGC is to permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and >> contradictions, the world will simply move on without it. On the >> bestbits list I saw no opposition to sending this letter right away >> (including, quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and >> are also on the BB list) >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time >>> now. Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's >>> plans are clear. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>>> >>>> Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled >>>> with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the >>>> liaisons? >>>> >>>> If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, >>>> and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. >>>> >>>> There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed to >>>> express among the IGC members who participated in person in the >>>> relevant discussions in Bali. >>>> >>>> The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC >>>> Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online >>>> polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority >>>> of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter, >>>> such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the >>>> coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough >>>> consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed if >>>> desired.) >>>> >>>> But we should certainly discuss the matter first. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> >>>> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial >>>>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is >>>>> counterproductive in the long run. >>>>> >>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>> >>>>>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: >>>>>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter >>>>>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not >>>>>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information >>>>>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job >>>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that >>>>>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to >>>>>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go >>>>>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of >>>>>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into >>>>>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that >>>>>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If >>>>>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe >>>>>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At >>>>>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... >>>>>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps >>>>>> Looks good to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Nov 15 14:01:20 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:01:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <5285C34E.7070308@cis-india.org> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <5285C34E.7070308@cis-india.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Fri Nov 15 14:31:10 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 19:31:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'Ta bom, então! --mc On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Minha sugestão é esperar mais uma semana. > > > > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Mawaki Chango > Date: 15-11-2013 13:51 (GMT-03:00) > To: Internet Governance ,"Carlos A. > Afonso" > Cc: parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons > > > Oi, o meu irmao! > > [c.a., sorry I only know of the Mozambican Portuguese which, as I was > laughed at in Bahia, was more like the Portuguese Portuguese :)] > > Caution to wait would make more sense to me if we knew the specific > aspects of the summit item to be addressed in the BR govt's awaited > statement and could evaluate the timing of this letter against that > backdrop. Does anyone know? If so, is there a possible conflict with the > content of the CS letter? If not, are we sure BR govt is not talking with > whichever stakeholder has showed up (or knocked at their door) with some > clear and serious ideas in order to work out precisely something for the > content of the expected statement? Or that it might be made on assumptions > that we will not feel comfortable with later on? > > Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand well what the risks are vis-a-vis the > BR govt for sending such letter even before their statement. I do > understand the rationale of the other objection already discussed here re. > stakeholder partition. But from the standpoint of someone who doesn't share > that other objection, I'm just curious where you might see the risks taking > into account the content of the letter. > > In any event, I rest my case. > > Abraços > > Mawaki > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Parm, we should have a letter ready, but we should also be careful. We >> do not know what the gov is up to at this point. The Nov.11 deadline has >> passed and there is no news on a new date. The actual proposal might >> lead us to make changes in the letter. >> >> As we say in Rio: "muita calma nessa hora!" Actually is about time you >> all try and start learning some Brazilian Portuguese :) >> >> I would recommend waiting for one more week and if there is no news then >> send the letter, making sure it first reaches the steering committee in >> BR. It would be politically bad if they learned about the letter through >> the press or our lists. >> >> []s fraternos >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 11/15/2013 08:46 AM, parminder wrote: >> > I am completely unable to understand delaying the process of intimating >> > to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS, will like to have direct liaison >> > with Brazilian gov on the forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose, >> > these are our four liaison persons. >> > >> > In fact there is every reason to send the proposed letter to Brazil gov >> > *before* they make any definitive announcement about the proposed >> > meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in which it will be >> > organised, and so on... >> > >> > If IGC is to permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and >> > contradictions, the world will simply move on without it. On the >> > bestbits list I saw no opposition to sending this letter right away >> > (including, quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and >> > are also on the BB list) >> > >> > parminder >> > >> > >> > On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time >> >> now. Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's >> >> plans are clear. >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> >> >>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >>> >> >>> Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled >> >>> with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the >> >>> liaisons? >> >>> >> >>> If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, >> >>> and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. >> >>> >> >>> There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed >> to >> >>> express among the IGC members who participated in person in the >> >>> relevant discussions in Bali. >> >>> >> >>> The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC >> >>> Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online >> >>> polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming >> majority >> >>> of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter, >> >>> such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the >> >>> coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough >> >>> consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed >> if >> >>> desired.) >> >>> >> >>> But we should certainly discuss the matter first. >> >>> >> >>> Greetings, >> >>> Norbert >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial >> >>>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is >> >>>> counterproductive in the long run. >> >>>> >> >>>> --srs (iPad) >> >>>> >> >>>>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: >> >>>>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter >> >>>>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not >> >>>>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information >> >>>>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job >> >>>>>>>> here. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that >> >>>>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to >> >>>>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go >> >>>>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of >> >>>>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into >> >>>>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that >> >>>>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If >> >>>>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe >> >>>>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At >> >>>>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... >> >>>>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps >> >>>>> Looks good to me. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Nov 15 15:38:34 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:38:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] new paper on Multistakeholder Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Carol. I had the chance to see the presentation of this paper during IGF Bali. Very interesting indeed. Marília On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2354377 > > DeNardis, Dr. Laura and Raymond, Mark, Thinking Clearly About > Multistakeholder Internet Governance (November 14, 2013). Available at > SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract= > > *Abstract: * > Efforts to study and practice Internet governance start, virtually without > exception, from the premise that the Internet is governed by an innovative, > unusual (perhaps unique) ‘multistakeholder’ model. Preserving that model is > a primary goal for the broader Internet community as well as for many > governments, though not for all. Viewing multistakeholderism as a > teleological goal for Internet governance creates several problems. First, > multistakeholderism is often elevated as a value in itself rather than as a > possible approach to meeting more salient public interest objectives such > as preserving Internet interoperability, stability, security, and openness. > Second, multistakeholder governance may not be appropriate in every > functional area of Internet governance. Internet coordination is not a > monolithic practice but rather a multilayered series of tasks of which some > are appropriately relegated to the private sector, some the purview of > traditional nation-state governance or international treaty negotiations, > and some more appropriately multistakeholder. It is a misnomer to speak not > only of multistakeholder governance but also of Internet governance as a > single thing. > > The concept of multistakeholderism can also serve as a proxy for broader > political struggles or be deployed as an impediment to the types of > Internet coordination necessary to promote conditions of responsible > governance. For example, governments with repressive information policies > can advocate for top-down and formalized multistakeholderism to gain > additional power in areas in which they have traditionally not had > jurisdiction. These types of efforts can result in multilateral rather than > multistakeholder approaches with non-governmental actors limited from > participating in formal deliberations and lacking any meaningful voting > power. Alternatively, companies and other actors with vested interests in > current governance arrangements can deploy multistakeholderism in a manner > either meant to exclude new entrants (whether public or private) with > incommensurate interests and values or to preserve incumbent market > advantage. > > This paper suggests that multistakeholderism should not be viewed as a > value in itself applied homogenously to all Internet governance functions. > Rather, the appropriate approach to responsible Internet governance > requires determining what types of administration are optimal for promoting > a balance of interoperability, innovation, free expression and operational > stability in any particular functional and political context. Doing so > requires conceptual and theoretical tools that have not yet been developed. > Accordingly, the paper proceeds in three parts. First, it presents a more > granular taxonomy and understanding of Internet governance functions – > differentiating between, for example, cybersecurity governance, Internet > standards setting, and the policymaking function of private information > intermediaries. Second, it performs the same task of disaggregation with > respect to multistakeholderism. It presents distinct varieties of > multistakeholder Internet governance (which differ according to the > varieties of actors involved and the nature of authority relations between > them) and sets these arrangements in a broader context of modalities for > accomplishing global governance in other issue areas. Such an approach > contributes both to the study and practice of Internet governance, and to > scholarship in International Relations and global governance. > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 15 18:41:20 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:41:20 -0600 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_the_se?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?lection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_the_ICAN?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?N_Board_of_Directors=2E?= Message-ID: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Nov 15 18:46:39 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:46:39 -0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_selection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_the_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ICANN_Board_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> References: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> Message-ID: Timing could not have been better. 2014 will bring complex issues, probably institutional changes. The role of ICANN in the regime will be something to think about and few people are as experienced as Wolfgang for tackling this debate. Congratulations to him and to ICANN for the choice. Marilia On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:41 PM, John Curran wrote: > > > FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) > /John > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 15 19:05:26 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:05:26 -0600 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_selection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_the_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ICANN_Board_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> Message-ID: I join John and Marilia in congratulating Wolfgang. Sala On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Timing could not have been better. 2014 will bring complex issues, > probably institutional changes. The role of ICANN in the regime will be > something to think about and few people are as experienced as Wolfgang for > tackling this debate. > Congratulations to him and to ICANN for the choice. > Marilia > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:41 PM, John Curran wrote: > >> >> >> FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) >> /John >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at cgi.br Fri Nov 15 19:12:50 2013 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:12:50 -0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5286B882.7080805@cgi.br> Hi, Please avoid the expression SUMMIT. It will be a Conference ...., a Dialog ..., or an event that clearly shows a multistakeholder support. SUMMIT normaly is used for High Level Government Meetings. regards Hartmut =================================== On 15/11/13 15:18, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I refer to the summit's steering committee nominated by the BR prez > after she met Fadi and announced the meeting. > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: parminder > Date: 15-11-2013 10:28 (GMT-03:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons > > > > On Friday 15 November 2013 04:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Parm, we should have a letter ready, but we should also be careful. We > > do not know what the gov is up to at this point. The Nov.11 deadline has > > passed and there is no news on a new date. The actual proposal might > > lead us to make changes in the letter. > > > > As we say in Rio: "muita calma nessa hora!" Actually is about time you > > all try and start learning some Brazilian Portuguese :) > > > > I would recommend waiting for one more week and if there is no news then > > send the letter, making sure it first reaches the steering committee in > > BR. > > Sorry, Carlos, did not understand which steering committee you refer to > here. If it is the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, sure we can > send letter to both Brazilian gov and the Steering Committee. > > I still think we should send a letter to them right away with just the > names of our 4 Brazilian liaisons .... I have a feeling that they > (Brazilians) do not fully realise the feeling among the civil society > for a direct liaison with Brazilian hosts, and not through the so called > coalition of non gov stakeholders being presented.... Unless of course > you know of something that I dont know, which is quite likely.. > > parminder > > > It would be politically bad if they learned about the letter through > > the press or our lists. > > > > []s fraternos > > > > --c.a. > > > > On 11/15/2013 08:46 AM, parminder wrote: > >> I am completely unable to understand delaying the process of intimating > >> to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS, will like to have direct > liaison > >> with Brazilian gov on the forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose, > >> these are our four liaison persons. > >> > >> In fact there is every reason to send the proposed letter to > Brazil gov > >> *before* they make any definitive announcement about the proposed > >> meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in which it will be > >> organised, and so on... > >> > >> If IGC is to permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and > >> contradictions, the world will simply move on without it. On the > >> bestbits list I saw no opposition to sending this letter right away > >> (including, quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and > >> are also on the BB list) > >> > >> parminder > >> > >> > >> On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>> An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time > >>> now. Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's > >>> plans are clear. > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>> > >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] > >>>> > >>>> Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled > >>>> with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the > >>>> liaisons? > >>>> > >>>> If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, > >>>> and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. > >>>> > >>>> There was very strong support for what this letter has been > proposed to > >>>> express among the IGC members who participated in person in the > >>>> relevant discussions in Bali. > >>>> > >>>> The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC > >>>> Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online > >>>> polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming > majority > >>>> of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter, > >>>> such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the > >>>> coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough > >>>> consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be > appealed if > >>>> desired.) > >>>> > >>>> But we should certainly discuss the matter first. > >>>> > >>>> Greetings, > >>>> Norbert > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial > >>>>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is > >>>>> counterproductive in the long run. > >>>>> > >>>>> --srs (iPad) > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal > letter > >>>>>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not > >>>>>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information > >>>>>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job > >>>>>>>>> here. > >>>>>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that > >>>>>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to > >>>>>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go > >>>>>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of > >>>>>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into > >>>>>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that > >>>>>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If > >>>>>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe > >>>>>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At > >>>>>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... > >>>>>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps > >>>>>> Looks good to me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Nov 15 19:35:43 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 19:35:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_selection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_the_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ICANN_Board_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> References: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 6:41 PM, John Curran wrote: > > > FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) Well done Wolfie! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 15 19:43:34 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 06:13:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_the_sel?= =?UTF-8?Q?ection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=C3=A4chter_as_a_member_to_the_ICANN_B?= =?UTF-8?Q?oard_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> References: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> Message-ID: Excellent. And now do we hear more "ICANN is not multistakeholder" complaints from the usual quarters? No? I thought not :) Congratulations, Wolfgang. --srs (iPad) > On 16-Nov-2013, at 5:11, John Curran wrote: > > > > FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) > /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kstouray at gmail.com Fri Nov 15 20:02:40 2013 From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 02:02:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_selection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_the_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ICANN_Board_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> References: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> Message-ID: Congratulations, Wolfgang! Best wishes for a successful tenure! Katim On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:41 AM, John Curran wrote: > > > FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) > /John > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Fri Nov 15 20:06:47 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 01:06:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_selection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_the_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ICANN_Board_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> Message-ID: Adding my voice to congratulate Wolfgang. Way to go! Best wishes, mawaki On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Katim S. Touray wrote: > Congratulations, Wolfgang! Best wishes for a successful tenure! > > Katim > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:41 AM, John Curran wrote: > >> >> >> FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) >> /John >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Fri Nov 15 20:36:52 2013 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:36:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_the_sel?= =?UTF-8?Q?ection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=C3=A4chter_as_a_member_to_the_ICANN_B?= =?UTF-8?Q?oard_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> References: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> Message-ID: <5286CC34.5060001@communisphere.com> Congrats. Keep the good ideas flowing. Tom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jordan at internetnz.net.nz Fri Nov 15 22:02:55 2013 From: jordan at internetnz.net.nz (Jordan Carter) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:02:55 +1300 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_selection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_the_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ICANN_Board_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> References: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> Message-ID: Congrats Wolfgang! Jordan Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ *To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand* On 16 November 2013 12:41, John Curran wrote: > > > FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) > /John > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan at internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 15 23:46:22 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:46:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_selection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_the_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ICANN_Board_of_Directors=2E?= Message-ID: <1384577182.9302.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Congratulation to Wolfgang. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah Pakistan ------------------------------ On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 8:02 AM PKT Jordan Carter wrote: >Congrats Wolfgang! > >Jordan > >Jordan Carter >Chief Executive, InternetNZ > >*To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand* > > >On 16 November 2013 12:41, John Curran wrote: > >> >> >> FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) >> /John >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > >-- >Jordan Carter > >Chief Executive >*InternetNZ* > >04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) >jordan at internetnz.net.nz >Skype: jordancarter > >*To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand.* -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Sat Nov 16 00:57:30 2013 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 05:57:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_selection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_the_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ICANN_Board_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: <1384577182.9302.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1384577182.9302.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1384581450.39986.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Congratulations to Wolfgang. Regards   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 Le Samedi 16 novembre 2013 7h05, Imran Ahmed Shah a écrit : Congratulation to Wolfgang. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah Pakistan ------------------------------ On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 8:02 AM PKT Jordan Carter wrote: >Congrats Wolfgang! > >Jordan > >Jordan Carter >Chief Executive, InternetNZ > >*To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand* > > >On 16 November 2013 12:41, John Curran wrote: > >> >> >> FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) >> /John >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > >-- >Jordan Carter > >Chief Executive >*InternetNZ* > >04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) >jordan at internetnz.net.nz >Skype: jordancarter > >*To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand.* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 16 02:25:46 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:25:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons In-Reply-To: <5286B882.7080805@cgi.br> References: <5286B882.7080805@cgi.br> Message-ID: Dear All, Lets not put the Cart before the Horse. My 1cent. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Nov 16, 2013 1:13 AM, "Hartmut Richard Glaser" wrote: > > Hi, > > Please avoid the expression SUMMIT. It will be a Conference ...., a Dialog > ..., or an event that clearly shows a multistakeholder > support. SUMMIT normaly is used for High Level Government Meetings. > > regards > > Hartmut > > =================================== > On 15/11/13 15:18, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > I refer to the summit's steering committee nominated by the BR prez after > she met Fadi and announced the meeting. > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: parminder > Date: 15-11-2013 10:28 (GMT-03:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons > > > > On Friday 15 November 2013 04:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Parm, we should have a letter ready, but we should also be careful. We > > do not know what the gov is up to at this point. The Nov.11 deadline has > > passed and there is no news on a new date. The actual proposal might > > lead us to make changes in the letter. > > > > As we say in Rio: "muita calma nessa hora!" Actually is about time you > > all try and start learning some Brazilian Portuguese :) > > > > I would recommend waiting for one more week and if there is no news then > > send the letter, making sure it first reaches the steering committee in > > BR. > > Sorry, Carlos, did not understand which steering committee you refer to > here. If it is the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, sure we can > send letter to both Brazilian gov and the Steering Committee. > > I still think we should send a letter to them right away with just the > names of our 4 Brazilian liaisons .... I have a feeling that they > (Brazilians) do not fully realise the feeling among the civil society > for a direct liaison with Brazilian hosts, and not through the so called > coalition of non gov stakeholders being presented.... Unless of course > you know of something that I dont know, which is quite likely.. > > parminder > > > It would be politically bad if they learned about the letter through > > the press or our lists. > > > > []s fraternos > > > > --c.a. > > > > On 11/15/2013 08:46 AM, parminder wrote: > >> I am completely unable to understand delaying the process of intimating > >> to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS, will like to have direct liaison > >> with Brazilian gov on the forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose, > >> these are our four liaison persons. > >> > >> In fact there is every reason to send the proposed letter to Brazil gov > >> *before* they make any definitive announcement about the proposed > >> meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in which it will be > >> organised, and so on... > >> > >> If IGC is to permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and > >> contradictions, the world will simply move on without it. On the > >> bestbits list I saw no opposition to sending this letter right away > >> (including, quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and > >> are also on the BB list) > >> > >> parminder > >> > >> > >> On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>> An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time > >>> now. Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's > >>> plans are clear. > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>> > >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] > >>>> > >>>> Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled > >>>> with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the > >>>> liaisons? > >>>> > >>>> If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, > >>>> and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. > >>>> > >>>> There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed > to > >>>> express among the IGC members who participated in person in the > >>>> relevant discussions in Bali. > >>>> > >>>> The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC > >>>> Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online > >>>> polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming > majority > >>>> of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter, > >>>> such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the > >>>> coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough > >>>> consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed > if > >>>> desired.) > >>>> > >>>> But we should certainly discuss the matter first. > >>>> > >>>> Greetings, > >>>> Norbert > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial > >>>>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is > >>>>> counterproductive in the long run. > >>>>> > >>>>> --srs (iPad) > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter > >>>>>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not > >>>>>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information > >>>>>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job > >>>>>>>>> here. > >>>>>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that > >>>>>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to > >>>>>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go > >>>>>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of > >>>>>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into > >>>>>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that > >>>>>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If > >>>>>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe > >>>>>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At > >>>>>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... > >>>>>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps > >>>>>> Looks good to me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 soekpe at gmail.com Sat Nov 16 04:56:46 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 10:56:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_selection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_the_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ICANN_Board_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> References: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> Message-ID: Congratulations Prof. Wolfgang. This is the collaborative efforts I have being seeking. Where business, Civil Society and Government can sit on the table and dialogue for the good of humanity. Once again congrats ICANN for this excellent choice and Prof. Wolfgang whose tenure will be of great good to all. Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:41 AM, John Curran wrote: > > > FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) > /John > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mazzone at ebu.ch Sat Nov 16 06:16:13 2013 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:16:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_selection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_the_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ICANN_Board_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> Message-ID: Congratulations Wolfgang, you really deserve it and you'll be there at a moment crucial for the changes we are all expecting from ICANN. Good luck. Giacomo From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Sonigitu Ekpe Sent: samedi 16 novembre 2013 10:57 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran Subject: Re: [governance] 2013 ICANN pleased to announce the selection of Wolfgang Kleinwächter as a member to the ICANN Board of Directors. Congratulations Prof. Wolfgang. This is the collaborative efforts I have being seeking. Where business, Civil Society and Government can sit on the table and dialogue for the good of humanity. Once again congrats ICANN for this excellent choice and Prof. Wolfgang whose tenure will be of great good to all. Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:41 AM, John Curran > wrote: FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Sat Nov 16 06:40:54 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:40:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_the_sel?= =?UTF-8?Q?ection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=C3=A4chter_as_a_member_to_the_ICANN_B?= =?UTF-8?Q?oard_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: <1384581450.39986.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1384577182.9302.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1384581450.39986.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <528759C6.3060500@panamo.eu> Congrats, Wolfgang! For those young people who never met WK, here's a snap from a GAC meeeting in Durban, July 2013: http://www.panamo.eu/189/icann-47-durban-15-july-2013-the-gac/ For everybody, at the adress panamo.eu, you can see 3 sets of photos of Durban meeting: Strategic discussions, The Contract (with a nice shot of Akram Atallah) and The GAC (with a great photo of Glaser at work). And also some shots of Bertrand de la Chapelle's conference last Tuesday in Paris. @+, cheers, Dom -- Dominique Lacroix Photographer http://panamo.eu & Associated researcher http://cyberstrategie.org & Invited blogger at /Le Monde/ http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr Le 16/11/13 06:57, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA a écrit : > Congratulations to Wolfgang. Regards NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN > COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des > Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth > Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook : > http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 Le > Samedi 16 novembre 2013 7h05, Imran Ahmed Shah a > écrit : Congratulation to Wolfgang. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah Pakistan > ------------------------------ On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 8:02 AM PKT Jordan > Carter 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 ca at cafonso.ca Sat Nov 16 05:11:23 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:11:23 -0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons Message-ID: This is a mistake. Brazil wishes a decision-making event, at a minimum capable of meaningful, concrete recommendations, at a mininum to try to set a sort of universal framework of principles for the Internet. Those who wish to reduce it to a re-edition of the IGF toothless dialogues (incidentally, also a UN mistake -- read the 12 items of the IGF mandate in the Tunis Agenda) are in for a surprise. If it will work, well, it is another story. --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Hartmut Richard Glaser Date: 15-11-2013 22:12 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: parminder Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons Hi, Please avoid the expression SUMMIT. It will be a Conference ...., a Dialog ..., or an event that clearly shows a multistakeholder support. SUMMIT normaly is used for High Level Government Meetings. regards Hartmut =================================== On 15/11/13 15:18, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: I refer to the summit's steering committee nominated by the BR prez after she met Fadi and announced the meeting. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: parminder Date: 15-11-2013 10:28 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons On Friday 15 November 2013 04:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Parm, we should have a letter ready, but we should also be careful. We > do not know what the gov is up to at this point. The Nov.11 deadline has > passed and there is no news on a new date. The actual proposal might > lead us to make changes in the letter. > > As we say in Rio: "muita calma nessa hora!" Actually is about time you > all try and start learning some Brazilian Portuguese :) > > I would recommend waiting for one more week and if there is no news then > send the letter, making sure it first reaches the steering committee in > BR. Sorry, Carlos, did not understand which steering committee you refer to here. If it is the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, sure we can send letter to both Brazilian gov and the Steering Committee. I still think we should send a letter to them right away with just the names of our 4 Brazilian liaisons .... I have a feeling that they (Brazilians) do not fully realise the feeling among the civil society for a direct liaison with Brazilian hosts, and not through the so called coalition of non gov stakeholders being presented.... Unless of course you know of something that I dont know, which is quite likely.. parminder > It would be politically bad if they learned about the letter through > the press or our lists. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 11/15/2013 08:46 AM, parminder wrote: >> I am completely unable to understand delaying the process of intimating >> to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS, will like to have direct liaison >> with Brazilian gov on the forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose, >> these are our four liaison persons. >> >> In fact there is every reason to send the  proposed letter to Brazil gov >> *before* they make any definitive announcement about the proposed >> meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in which it will be >> organised, and so on... >> >> If IGC is to permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and >> contradictions, the world will simply move on without it. On the >> bestbits list I saw no opposition to sending this letter right away >> (including, quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and >> are also on the BB list) >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time >>> now.  Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's >>> plans are clear. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>>> >>>> Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled >>>> with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the >>>> liaisons? >>>> >>>> If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, >>>> and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. >>>> >>>> There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed to >>>> express among the IGC members who participated in person in the >>>> relevant discussions in Bali. >>>> >>>> The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC >>>> Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online >>>> polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority >>>> of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter, >>>> such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the >>>> coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough >>>> consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed if >>>> desired.) >>>> >>>> But we should certainly discuss the matter first. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> >>>> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial >>>>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is >>>>> counterproductive in the long run. >>>>> >>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>> >>>>>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: >>>>>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter >>>>>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not >>>>>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information >>>>>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job >>>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that >>>>>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to >>>>>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go >>>>>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of >>>>>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into >>>>>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that >>>>>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If >>>>>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe >>>>>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At >>>>>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... >>>>>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps >>>>>> Looks good to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 ca at cafonso.ca Sat Nov 16 05:46:55 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:46:55 -0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons Message-ID: <6ixi35221kyo2f9bowm4vw76.1384597734329@email.android.com> BTW, your Mozambican Portuguese is impeccable! :) ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Mawaki Chango Date: 15-11-2013 17:31 (GMT-03:00) To: "Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: Internet Governance Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons 'Ta bom, então! --mc On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Minha sugestão é esperar mais uma semana. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Mawaki Chango Date: 15-11-2013 13:51 (GMT-03:00) To: Internet Governance ,"Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: parminder Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons Oi, o meu irmao! [c.a., sorry I only know of the Mozambican Portuguese which, as I was laughed at in Bahia, was more like the Portuguese Portuguese :)] Caution to wait would make more sense to me if we knew the specific aspects of the summit item to be addressed in the BR govt's awaited statement and could evaluate the timing of this letter against that backdrop. Does anyone know? If so, is there a possible conflict with the content of the CS letter? If not, are we sure BR govt is not talking with whichever stakeholder has showed up (or knocked at their door) with some clear and serious ideas in order to work out precisely something for the content of the expected statement? Or that it might be made on assumptions that we will not feel comfortable with later on? Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand well what the risks are vis-a-vis the BR govt for sending such letter even before their statement. I do understand the rationale of the other objection already discussed here re. stakeholder partition. But from the standpoint of someone who doesn't share that other objection, I'm just curious where you might see the risks taking into account the content of the letter. In any event, I rest my case. Abraços Mawaki    On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Parm, we should have a letter ready, but we should also be careful. We do not know what the gov is up to at this point. The Nov.11 deadline has passed and there is no news on a new date. The actual proposal might lead us to make changes in the letter. As we say in Rio: "muita calma nessa hora!" Actually is about time you all try and start learning some Brazilian Portuguese :) I would recommend waiting for one more week and if there is no news then send the letter, making sure it first reaches the steering committee in BR. It would be politically bad if they learned about the letter through the press or our lists. []s fraternos --c.a. On 11/15/2013 08:46 AM, parminder wrote: > I am completely unable to understand delaying the process of intimating > to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS, will like to have direct liaison > with Brazilian gov on the forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose, > these are our four liaison persons. > > In fact there is every reason to send the  proposed letter to Brazil gov > *before* they make any definitive announcement about the proposed > meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in which it will be > organised, and so on... > > If IGC is to permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and > contradictions, the world will simply move on without it. On the > bestbits list I saw no opposition to sending this letter right away > (including, quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and > are also on the BB list) > > parminder > > > On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time >> now.  Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's >> plans are clear. >> >> Adam >> >> On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>> >>> Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled >>> with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the >>> liaisons? >>> >>> If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, >>> and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. >>> >>> There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed to >>> express among the IGC members who participated in person in the >>> relevant discussions in Bali. >>> >>> The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC >>> Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online >>> polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority >>> of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter, >>> such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the >>> coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough >>> consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed if >>> desired.) >>> >>> But we should certainly discuss the matter first. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial >>>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is >>>> counterproductive in the long run. >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: >>>>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter >>>>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not >>>>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information >>>>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job >>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that >>>>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to >>>>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go >>>>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of >>>>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into >>>>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that >>>>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If >>>>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe >>>>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At >>>>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... >>>>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps >>>>> Looks good to me. >>>>> >>>>> 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 ca at cafonso.ca Sat Nov 16 05:45:34 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:45:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] Official Brazil event announcement Message-ID: http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/351157.html Conferência internacional sobre governança global da internet 14/11/2013 - 19:10 Os ministros da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI), Marco Antonio Raupp, das Comunicações, Paulo Bernardo, e das Relações Exteriores, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo, anunciam na próxima segunda-feira (18), às 10 horas, a Conferência Internacional sobre Governança Global da Internet, que será realizada no Brasil em 2014. O lançamento ocorre na Sala dos Conselhos do MCTI e será transmitido por meio de uma videoconferência para o 48º encontro da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers - Icann), realizado em Buenos Aires (Argentina). Após o evento, os ministros estarão disponíveis para uma conversa com a imprensa sobre questões relativas à governança da Internet e ciberespaço. Serviço O quê: Anúncio da Conferência Internacional de sobre Governança Global da Internet Data: 18/11/2013 Hora: 10 horas Local: Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI) Esplanada dos Ministérios, bloco E, 2º andar Contato para a imprensa: Caroline Coelho (Ascom MCTI) – (61) 9644-3096/(61) 2033-7515  ------------ C. A. Afonso -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Nov 16 08:42:37 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:42:37 -0200 Subject: [governance] official announcement of the BR Conference Message-ID: <5287764D.1060808@cafonso.ca> Here is the (my) English version of the announcement published in the MCTI portal. Now we know at least the official name: International Conference on Global Internet Governance. frt rgds --c.a. ===================== http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/351157.html International Conference on Global Internet Governance The Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI), Marco Antonio Raupp, of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, and of Foreign Affairs, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo, will announce on Monday (18) at 10 AM [Brasília Summer Time], the International Conference on Global Internet Governance, which will be held in Brazil in 2014. The announcement will take place in the Councils Room of MCTI and will be broadcast via videoconference to the 48th meeting of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), held in Buenos Aires (Argentina). After the event, the ministers will be available for a chat with the media on issues relating to Internet governance and cyberspace. service What: Announcement of the International Conference on Global Internet Governance Date : 18/11/2013 Time : 10 AM Brasília Summer Time Location : Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) Address: Esplanade of the Ministries, Block E, 2nd floor, Brasilia Press contact : Caroline Rabbit (Ascom MCTI) - (+55-61) 9644-3096 / (+55-61) 2033-7515 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Nov 16 08:58:52 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 09:58:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] official announcement of the BR Conference In-Reply-To: <5287764D.1060808@cafonso.ca> References: <5287764D.1060808@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Dear Carlos, In Portuguese is the word "global" strictly qualifying "Governança", or can the meaning be taken more generally as "government of the Internet as a global issue"? In English it could work either way, but Portuguese may have stricter rules about adjectives. Thank you Deirdre On 16 November 2013 09:42, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Here is the (my) English version of the announcement published in the MCTI > portal. > > Now we know at least the official name: International Conference on Global > Internet Governance. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > ===================== > http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/351157.html > > International Conference on Global Internet Governance > > The Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI), Marco Antonio > Raupp, of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, and of Foreign Affairs, Luiz > Alberto Figueiredo, will announce on Monday (18) at 10 AM [Brasília Summer > Time], the International Conference on Global Internet Governance, which > will be held in Brazil in 2014. > > The announcement will take place in the Councils Room of MCTI and will be > broadcast via videoconference to the 48th meeting of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), held in Buenos Aires > (Argentina). > > After the event, the ministers will be available for a chat with the media > on issues relating to Internet governance and cyberspace. > > service > > What: Announcement of the International Conference on Global Internet > Governance > Date : 18/11/2013 > Time : 10 AM Brasília Summer Time > Location : Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) > Address: Esplanade of the Ministries, Block E, 2nd floor, Brasilia > Press contact : Caroline Rabbit (Ascom MCTI) - (+55-61) 9644-3096 / (+55-61) > 2033-7515 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 divina.meigs at orange.fr Sat Nov 16 09:44:34 2013 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 15:44:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_selection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_the_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ICANN_Board_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: <1384577182.9302.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Congratulations, wolfgang Divina Frau-Meigs Section head, IAMCR Le 16/11/13 05:46, « Imran Ahmed Shah » a écrit : > > Congratulation to Wolfgang. > Regards > Imran Ahmed Shahc > Pakistan > > > > ------------------------------ > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 8:02 AM PKT Jordan Carter wrote: > >> Congrats Wolfgang! >> >> Jordan >> >> Jordan Carter >> Chief Executive, InternetNZ >> >> *To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand* >> >> >> On 16 November 2013 12:41, John Curran wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) >>> /John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Jordan Carter >> >> Chief Executive >> *InternetNZ* >> >> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) >> jordan at internetnz.net.nz >> Skype: jordancarter >> >> *To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand.* > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 hakik at hakik.org Sat Nov 16 09:56:07 2013 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 14:56:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_e_selection_of__Wolfgang__Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_t?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?he__ICANN___Board_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <1384577182.9302.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Congratulations to Prof. Wolfgang! Hakikur At 14:44 16-11-2013, Divina MEIGS wrote: >Congratulations, wolfgang >Divina Frau-Meigs >Section head, IAMCR > > >Le 16/11/13 05:46, « Imran Ahmed Shah » a écrit : > > > > > Congratulation to Wolfgang. > > Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shahc > > Pakistan > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 8:02 AM PKT Jordan Carter wrote: > > > >> Congrats Wolfgang! > >> > >> Jordan > >> > >> Jordan Carter > >> Chief Executive, InternetNZ > >> > >> *To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand* > >> > >> > >> On 16 November 2013 12:41, John Curran wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) > >>> /John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jordan Carter > >> > >> Chief Executive > >> *InternetNZ* > >> > >> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) > >> jordan at internetnz.net.nz > >> Skype: jordancarter > >> > >> *To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand.* > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your 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 glaser at cgi.br Sat Nov 16 10:22:20 2013 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:22:20 -0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52878DAC.6030702@cgi.br> My emphasis was that the Brazilian Meeting will NOT be a SUMMIT (only governments). ======================================================================== On 16/11/13 08:11, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > This is a mistake. Brazil wishes a decision-making event, at a minimum > capable of meaningful, concrete recommendations, at a mininum to try > to set a sort of universal framework of principles for the Internet. > Those who wish to reduce it to a re-edition of the IGF toothless > dialogues (incidentally, also a UN mistake -- read the 12 items of the > IGF mandate in the Tunis Agenda) are in for a surprise. > > If it will work, well, it is another story. > > --c.a. > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Hartmut Richard Glaser > Date: 15-11-2013 22:12 (GMT-03:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" > Cc: parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons > > > > Hi, > > Please avoid the expression SUMMIT. It will be a Conference ...., a > Dialog ..., or an event that clearly shows a multistakeholder > support. SUMMIT normaly is used for High Level Government Meetings. > > regards > > Hartmut > > =================================== > On 15/11/13 15:18, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> I refer to the summit's steering committee nominated by the BR prez >> after she met Fadi and announced the meeting. >> >> ------------ >> C. A. Afonso >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: parminder >> Date: 15-11-2013 10:28 (GMT-03:00) >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil >> liaisons >> >> >> >> On Friday 15 November 2013 04:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> > Parm, we should have a letter ready, but we should also be careful. We >> > do not know what the gov is up to at this point. The Nov.11 >> deadline has >> > passed and there is no news on a new date. The actual proposal might >> > lead us to make changes in the letter. >> > >> > As we say in Rio: "muita calma nessa hora!" Actually is about time you >> > all try and start learning some Brazilian Portuguese :) >> > >> > I would recommend waiting for one more week and if there is no news >> then >> > send the letter, making sure it first reaches the steering committee in >> > BR. >> >> Sorry, Carlos, did not understand which steering committee you refer to >> here. If it is the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, sure we can >> send letter to both Brazilian gov and the Steering Committee. >> >> I still think we should send a letter to them right away with just the >> names of our 4 Brazilian liaisons .... I have a feeling that they >> (Brazilians) do not fully realise the feeling among the civil society >> for a direct liaison with Brazilian hosts, and not through the so called >> coalition of non gov stakeholders being presented.... Unless of course >> you know of something that I dont know, which is quite likely.. >> >> parminder >> >> > It would be politically bad if they learned about the letter through >> > the press or our lists. >> > >> > []s fraternos >> > >> > --c.a. >> > >> > On 11/15/2013 08:46 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> I am completely unable to understand delaying the process of >> intimating >> >> to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS, will like to have direct >> liaison >> >> with Brazilian gov on the forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose, >> >> these are our four liaison persons. >> >> >> >> In fact there is every reason to send the proposed letter to >> Brazil gov >> >> *before* they make any definitive announcement about the proposed >> >> meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in which it will be >> >> organised, and so on... >> >> >> >> If IGC is to permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and >> >> contradictions, the world will simply move on without it. On the >> >> bestbits list I saw no opposition to sending this letter right away >> >> (including, quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and >> >> are also on the BB list) >> >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time >> >>> now. Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's >> >>> plans are clear. >> >>> >> >>> Adam >> >>> >> >>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >>>> >> >>>> Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled >> >>>> with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the >> >>>> liaisons? >> >>>> >> >>>> If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, >> >>>> and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. >> >>>> >> >>>> There was very strong support for what this letter has been >> proposed to >> >>>> express among the IGC members who participated in person in the >> >>>> relevant discussions in Bali. >> >>>> >> >>>> The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC >> >>>> Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online >> >>>> polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming >> majority >> >>>> of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the >> Charter, >> >>>> such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the >> >>>> coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough >> >>>> consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be >> appealed if >> >>>> desired.) >> >>>> >> >>>> But we should certainly discuss the matter first. >> >>>> >> >>>> Greetings, >> >>>> Norbert >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial >> >>>>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is >> >>>>> counterproductive in the long run. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> --srs (iPad) >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal >> letter >> >>>>>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not >> >>>>>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for >> information >> >>>>>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help >> our job >> >>>>>>>>> here. >> >>>>>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that >> >>>>>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to >> >>>>>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go >> >>>>>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface >> is of >> >>>>>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into >> >>>>>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that >> >>>>>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If >> >>>>>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe >> >>>>>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At >> >>>>>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... >> >>>>>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps >> >>>>>> Looks good to me. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> 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 ca at cafonso.ca Sat Nov 16 10:34:05 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:34:05 -0200 Subject: [governance] official announcement of the BR Conference Message-ID: Hi Deirdre, just learned the title might be much better than that. Waiting for confirmation. fraternal regards --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Deirdre Williams Date: 16-11-2013 11:58 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" Subject: Re: [governance] official announcement of the BR Conference Dear Carlos, In Portuguese is the word "global" strictly qualifying "Governança", or can the meaning be taken more generally as "government of the Internet as a global issue"? In English it could work either way, but Portuguese may have stricter rules about adjectives. Thank you Deirdre On 16 November 2013 09:42, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Here is the (my) English version of the announcement published in the MCTI portal. Now we know at least the official name: International Conference on Global Internet Governance. frt rgds --c.a. ===================== http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/351157.html International Conference on Global Internet Governance The Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI), Marco Antonio Raupp, of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, and of Foreign Affairs, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo, will announce on Monday (18) at 10 AM [Brasília Summer Time], the International Conference on Global Internet Governance, which will be held in Brazil in 2014. The announcement will take place in the Councils Room of MCTI and will be broadcast via videoconference to the 48th meeting of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), held in Buenos Aires (Argentina). After the event, the ministers will be available for a chat with the media on issues relating to Internet governance and cyberspace. service What: Announcement of the International Conference on Global Internet Governance Date : 18/11/2013 Time : 10 AM Brasília Summer Time Location : Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) Address: Esplanade of the Ministries, Block E, 2nd floor, Brasilia Press contact : Caroline Rabbit (Ascom MCTI) - (+55-61) 9644-3096 / (+55-61) 2033-7515 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 ca at cafonso.ca Sat Nov 16 10:39:25 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:39:25 -0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons Message-ID: <9jikubacm8rxsad145y18pey.1384616213351@email.android.com> We have just learned that it will be a "conference". ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Hartmut Richard Glaser Date: 16-11-2013 13:22 (GMT-03:00) To: "Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,parminder Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons My emphasis was that the Brazilian Meeting will NOT be a SUMMIT (only governments). ======================================================================== On 16/11/13 08:11, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: This is a mistake. Brazil wishes a decision-making event, at a minimum capable of meaningful, concrete recommendations, at a mininum to try to set a sort of universal framework of principles for the Internet. Those who wish to reduce it to a re-edition of the IGF toothless dialogues (incidentally, also a UN mistake -- read the 12 items of the IGF mandate in the Tunis Agenda) are in for a surprise. If it will work, well, it is another story. --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Hartmut Richard Glaser Date: 15-11-2013 22:12 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: parminder Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons Hi, Please avoid the expression SUMMIT. It will be a Conference ...., a Dialog ..., or an event that clearly shows a multistakeholder support. SUMMIT normaly is used for High Level Government Meetings. regards Hartmut =================================== On 15/11/13 15:18, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: I refer to the summit's steering committee nominated by the BR prez after she met Fadi and announced the meeting. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: parminder Date: 15-11-2013 10:28 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons On Friday 15 November 2013 04:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Parm, we should have a letter ready, but we should also be careful. We > do not know what the gov is up to at this point. The Nov.11 deadline has > passed and there is no news on a new date. The actual proposal might > lead us to make changes in the letter. > > As we say in Rio: "muita calma nessa hora!" Actually is about time you > all try and start learning some Brazilian Portuguese :) > > I would recommend waiting for one more week and if there is no news then > send the letter, making sure it first reaches the steering committee in > BR. Sorry, Carlos, did not understand which steering committee you refer to here. If it is the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, sure we can send letter to both Brazilian gov and the Steering Committee. I still think we should send a letter to them right away with just the names of our 4 Brazilian liaisons .... I have a feeling that they (Brazilians) do not fully realise the feeling among the civil society for a direct liaison with Brazilian hosts, and not through the so called coalition of non gov stakeholders being presented.... Unless of course you know of something that I dont know, which is quite likely.. parminder > It would be politically bad if they learned about the letter through > the press or our lists. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 11/15/2013 08:46 AM, parminder wrote: >> I am completely unable to understand delaying the process of intimating >> to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS, will like to have direct liaison >> with Brazilian gov on the forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose, >> these are our four liaison persons. >> >> In fact there is every reason to send the  proposed letter to Brazil gov >> *before* they make any definitive announcement about the proposed >> meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in which it will be >> organised, and so on... >> >> If IGC is to permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and >> contradictions, the world will simply move on without it. On the >> bestbits list I saw no opposition to sending this letter right away >> (including, quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and >> are also on the BB list) >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time >>> now.  Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's >>> plans are clear. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>>> >>>> Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled >>>> with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the >>>> liaisons? >>>> >>>> If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter, >>>> and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process. >>>> >>>> There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed to >>>> express among the IGC members who participated in person in the >>>> relevant discussions in Bali. >>>> >>>> The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC >>>> Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online >>>> polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority >>>> of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter, >>>> such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the >>>> coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough >>>> consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed if >>>> desired.) >>>> >>>> But we should certainly discuss the matter first. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> >>>> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial >>>>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is >>>>> counterproductive in the long run. >>>>> >>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>> >>>>>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote: >>>>>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter >>>>>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not >>>>>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information >>>>>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job >>>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that >>>>>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to >>>>>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go >>>>>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of >>>>>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into >>>>>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that >>>>>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If >>>>>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe >>>>>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At >>>>>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested... >>>>>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps >>>>>> Looks good to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 ca at cafonso.ca Sat Nov 16 10:54:28 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:54:28 -0200 Subject: [governance] full title of BR conference Message-ID: Hi, I have confirmation that the full title of the BR event will be: Global Multistakeholder Conference On the Future of Internet Governance Conferência Multissetorial Global Sobre o Futuro da Governança da Internet Much better! ;) ------------ C. A. Afonso -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Nov 16 11:00:09 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:00:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] full title of BR conference In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Much better :-) Thank you Carlos. Can you please start EARLY making the case for remote participation? Hugs Deirdre On 16 November 2013 11:54, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi, > > I have confirmation that the full title of the BR event will be: > > Global Multistakeholder Conference On the Future of Internet Governance > Conferência Multissetorial Global Sobre o Futuro da Governança da Internet > > Much better! ;) > > > > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sat Nov 16 11:01:33 2013 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:01:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_selection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_the_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ICANN_Board_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> Message-ID: +1 Decide well. /t On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Katim S. Touray wrote: > Congratulations, Wolfgang! Best wishes for a successful tenure! > > Katim > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:41 AM, John Curran wrote: > >> >> >> FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) >> /John >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Nov 16 11:09:52 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:09:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_e_selection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_the?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_ICANN_Board_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <1384577182.9302.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This is another feather in the cap for ICANN. Prof. Wolfgang is a a seasoned expert in Internet Policy and Regulation, ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh On 16 November 2013 14:56, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > Congratulations to Prof. Wolfgang! > > Hakikur > > > At 14:44 16-11-2013, Divina MEIGS wrote: > > Congratulations, wolfgang >> Divina Frau-Meigs >> Section head, IAMCR >> >> >> Le 16/11/13 05:46, « Imran Ahmed Shah » a écrit : >> >> > >> > Congratulation to Wolfgang. >> > Regards >> > Imran Ahmed Shahc >> > Pakistan >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 8:02 AM PKT Jordan Carter wrote: >> > >> >> Congrats Wolfgang! >> >> >> >> Jordan >> >> >> >> Jordan Carter >> >> Chief Executive, InternetNZ >> >> >> >> *To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand* >> >> >> >> >> >> On 16 November 2013 12:41, John Curran wrote: >> >> >> >>> > 15nov13-en.htm> >> >>> >> >>> FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) >> >>> /John >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>> >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>> >> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jordan Carter >> >> >> >> Chief Executive >> >> *InternetNZ* >> >> >> >> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) >> >> jordan at internetnz.net.nz >> >> Skype: jordancarter >> >> >> >> *To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand.* >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 16 11:17:47 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:17:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_selection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_the_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ICANN_Board_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> References: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> Message-ID: In message <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208 at istaff.org>, at 17:41:20 on Fri, 15 Nov 2013, John Curran writes > > >FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) Well done Wolfgang, and let's hope that it gets extended. 11 months isn't that long in the world of 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 pouzin at well.com Sat Nov 16 11:19:36 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:19:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] full title of BR conference In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In American English (Webster) the word global carries a connotation of totality, homogeneity, along with unification, centralization and hegemony (e.g. internet). In other words *global does not include subsidiarity and diversity*. No wonder it is used ad nauseum in PR blah.. World(wide) is more appropriate, as there is no hint of homogeneity, only of geographical presence. Louis - - - On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi, > > I have confirmation that the full title of the BR event will be: > > Global Multistakeholder Conference On the Future of Internet Governance > Conferência Multissetorial Global Sobre o Futuro da Governança da Internet > > Much better! ;) > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Nov 16 12:06:59 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 15:06:59 -0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] full title of BR conference Message-ID: Interesting thoughts, Louis. But remember that the ITU uses to call its conferences "world this and that" and they are usually the counterexample for diversity and such. frt rgds c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: "Louis Pouzin (well)" Date: 16-11-2013 14:19 (GMT-03:00) To: "Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," ,i-coordination at nro.net, chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org Subject: [governance] [bestbits] full title of BR conference In American English (Webster) the word global carries a connotation of totality, homogeneity, along with unification, centralization and hegemony (e.g. internet). In other words global does not include subsidiarity and diversity. No wonder it is used ad nauseum in PR blah.. World(wide) is more appropriate, as there is no hint of homogeneity, only of geographical presence.    Louis - - - On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Hi, I have confirmation that the full title of the BR event will be: Global Multistakeholder Conference On the Future of Internet Governance Conferência Multissetorial Global Sobre o Futuro da Governança da Internet Much better! ;) ------------ C. A. Afonso -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Nov 16 12:32:35 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:32:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] full title of BR conference In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A6B1F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Not to debate semantics...but ok I will: 'globalization' carries connotations as Louis states; whereas 'global' could imply...in all our global diversity, gee are we managing to muck up the climate. For example. ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca] Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:06 PM To: Louis Pouzin (well) Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; i-coordination at nro.net; chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] full title of BR conference Interesting thoughts, Louis. But remember that the ITU uses to call its conferences "world this and that" and they are usually the counterexample for diversity and such. frt rgds c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: "Louis Pouzin (well)" Date: 16-11-2013 14:19 (GMT-03:00) To: "Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," ,i-coordination at nro.net, chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org Subject: [governance] [bestbits] full title of BR conference In American English (Webster) the word global carries a connotation of totality, homogeneity, along with unification, centralization and hegemony (e.g. internet). In other words global does not include subsidiarity and diversity. No wonder it is used ad nauseum in PR blah.. World(wide) is more appropriate, as there is no hint of homogeneity, only of geographical presence. Louis - - - On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: Hi, I have confirmation that the full title of the BR event will be: Global Multistakeholder Conference On the Future of Internet Governance Conferência Multissetorial Global Sobre o Futuro da Governança da Internet Much better! ;) ------------ C. A. Afonso -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Sat Nov 16 08:21:38 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 15:21:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_the_sel?= =?UTF-8?Q?ection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=C3=A4chter_as_a_member_to_the_ICANN_B?= =?UTF-8?Q?oard_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> References: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> Message-ID: <541E87F9-2D37-4860-ADA2-D757FE7A0C94@digsys.bg> Congratulations Wolfgang, Keep the good idea coming. Daniel Sent from my iPad > On 16.11.2013, at 01:41, John Curran wrote: > > > > FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) > /John > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Nov 16 09:56:15 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 15:56:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Nov 16 13:24:18 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 19:24:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] full title of BR conference In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A6B1F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.sy r.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A6B1F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Nov 16 14:42:26 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:42:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] full title of BR conference In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A6B1F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.sy r.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A6B1F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <88E92C69-A9A7-4F4C-8349-E6F2CEE41D4A@cafonso.ca> Do not lose much time on this exegesis -- it is already good news the event got this title, and there is not much that can be done to change it now. sent from a dumbphone > On 16/11/2013, at 15:24, JFC Morfin wrote: > > At 18:32 16/11/2013, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> 'globalization' carries connotations as Louis states; > > Whole = world + bonus (the whole is more than the sum of its parts). > > in American: world = global > in French and many languages: whole = global. > > The difference is the "bonus". In our case it is documented by the pseudo-T&A (i.e. ISOC & W3C) community as a "Huge Bounty" resulting from OpenStand paradigm (cf. RFC 6852). Not from FLOSS, not from non-US Govs, not from non-US industries, not from lead-users, not from end-users, not from ITU, not from ISO, not from everyone money. > > The target for 40 years ( http://thebugofthe.net) is to make sure that the bonus (i.e. the intelligent use or people's "brainware") is forgotten and "benefits humanity" ... through the statUS-quo. The Brazilan serenade is just the n-th remake of the same swindle. Frankly, at the end it becomes quite boring. > > jfc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fsylla at gmail.com Sat Nov 16 15:14:48 2013 From: fsylla at gmail.com (Fatimata) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:14:48 -0300 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th_e_se?= =?UTF-8?Q?lection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=C3=A4chter_as_a_member_to_the_ICANN_?= =?UTF-8?Q?Board_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <1384577182.9302.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6E7919D9-A29B-4A3D-BD90-7CA7368C4C07@gmail.com> Congratulations Wolfgang! Well deserved! Fatimata Seye Sylla Sent from my iPad On 16 nov. 2013, at 13:09, Kivuva wrote: > This is another feather in the cap for ICANN. Prof. Wolfgang is a a seasoned expert in Internet Policy and Regulation, > > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva > twitter.com/lordmwesh > google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh > > > On 16 November 2013 14:56, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > Congratulations to Prof. Wolfgang! > > Hakikur > > > At 14:44 16-11-2013, Divina MEIGS wrote: > > Congratulations, wolfgang > Divina Frau-Meigs > Section head, IAMCR > > > Le 16/11/13 05:46, « Imran Ahmed Shah » a écrit : > > > > > Congratulation to Wolfgang. > > Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shahc > > Pakistan > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 8:02 AM PKT Jordan Carter wrote: > > > >> Congrats Wolfgang! > >> > >> Jordan > >> > >> Jordan Carter > >> Chief Executive, InternetNZ > >> > >> *To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand* > >> > >> > >> On 16 November 2013 12:41, John Curran wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) > >>> /John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jordan Carter > >> > >> Chief Executive > >> *InternetNZ* > >> > >> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) > >> jordan at internetnz.net.nz > >> Skype: jordancarter > >> > >> *To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand.* > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at cgi.br Sat Nov 16 22:23:32 2013 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 01:23:32 -0200 Subject: [governance] Announcement of the "Global Multistakeholder Meeting on,the Future on Internet Governance Message-ID: <528836B4.9080108@cgi.br> Dear All, The Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI), the Minister of Communications (MC) and the Minister of Foreign Affairs (MRE) decided to announce next Monday, November 18, that Brazil will host a multistakeholder event on the future on internet governance called: /*"Global Multistakeholder Meeting on *//*the Future on Internet Governance"*/. The announcement will focus on the offer of Brazil to host this event informing the date and the city where it will take place. Details such as the organization, participants and the dynamic of the meeting will be announced later together with representatives of other sectors and entities related to the Internet Governance. regards Hartmut Glaser -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Nov 16 23:26:10 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 05:26:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] full title of BR conference In-Reply-To: <88E92C69-A9A7-4F4C-8349-E6F2CEE41D4A@cafonso.ca> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A6B1F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <88E92C69-A9A7-4F4C-8349-E6F2CEE41D4A@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 16 23:57:41 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 01:57:41 -0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN 48 About to Commence Message-ID: <38D903AF-5E33-47B7-A750-8A5ECDD0353F@gmail.com> Dear All, Warm Greetings from Buenos Aires! We have converged in Argentina for the ICANN 48 which marks some interesting transitions in the growth and development of policies, cross-constituency collaboration and sharing of Studies on critical policy areas. The meetings will be incomplete without participation of communities who may not necessarily be here in person. The good news is that there is Remote Participation available unless the meetings are marked as closed. For those who have issues in low bandwidth, there are streaming options and capabilities designed to bring the meetings to the comfort of your offices, homes and organisations. In a few hours, which is Sunday here, we will be having preparatory meetings before the ICANN 48 meeting officially opens on Monday. There are some constituencies that have already been meeting early this week, coupled with the ICANN Academy Training for selected leaders of cross constituencies. Simultaneously, the Latin American DNS Forum was convened this week in the lead up to the ICANN 48. To access the full meeting schedule, kindly visit: http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule-full Things To Watch Out For *For ccTLD Managers and Interested Parties The ccNSO meetings which will be held at the Aguila room tomorrow are closed to working group members only. *For those interested in Internet Cooperation in the Asia Pacific There is a meeting at Retiro C where stakeholders from Asia Pacific will give feedback on the Engagement Strategy for the region. For those of you who may not be able to stay up, please feel free to send in your thoughts so that we can collate it. Kindly send them directly to Save or respond to this email. Time: 8:00am-9:00am Argentina time which is UTC-3. *ALAC and Regional Leaders Meeting This will be held at the Golden Horn from 9:00am to 6:30pm Argentina Remote streaming is available via http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-alac-regional Translation will be provided in French, English, Spanish and Portugese *GAC sessions This is relevant for governments, policy makers, regulators, law enforcement etc. It will be held in the San Telmo room and remote participation is available for all the sessions throughout the day. *GNSO Session The in-person meetings held in conjunction with the ICANN meetings provide an opportunity for productive and constructive discussions on issues that involve ICANN consensus policies that relate to interoperability, technical reliability and/or stable operation of the Internet or domain name system. This will held at the Retiro B and remote streaming is available. For information on work that the GNSO is involved with, kindly visit: http://gnso.icann.org/en/ Hope to see you online or in the virtual rooms. 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 kabani.asif at gmail.com Sun Nov 17 04:24:32 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 14:24:32 +0500 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_selection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_the_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ICANN_Board_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> References: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> Message-ID: Congrats Wolfgang On Saturday, November 16, 2013, John Curran wrote: > > > FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) > /John > > > > -- 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 kabani.asif at gmail.com Sun Nov 17 04:36:01 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 14:36:01 +0500 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We proposed that those whom have served MAG before should not consider this time and let other members served the MAG. On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > This is to advise that these are the current nominations received for MAG > Candidates that will go through the process of selection by a randomly > selected NomCom. > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > 1. > > Asif Kabani > 2. > > Rudi Vansnick > 3. > > Sonigitu Ekpe > 4. > > Imran Ahmed Shah > 5. > > Fouad Bajwa > 6. > > Katim S Touray > 7. > > Stuart Hamilton > > > Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting > clarification > -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 17 10:50:51 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:20:51 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC In-Reply-To: References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> <5282AE07.5000308@apc.org> Message-ID: <5288E5DB.10903@itforchange.net> Adam "On our mailing lists you are full of talk if transparency and openness and then when in more closed surroundings you are actually a man of government and control. Not good." (Adam) I find the tone and tenor of your email very objectionable. It makes direct ad hominem characterisations. I have asked for IGC cocos opinion on it, and after hearing from them will exercise my options... Meanwhile, below is my response to the substantive issues you raise. (Hopefully, as I am answering all the questions aimed at me, others would agree to do so too about issues that I will presently raise about the WGEC meeting. This is an important political discussion.) On Wednesday 13 November 2013 07:28 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Joy. > > Disappointing to see Parminder partnering with Iran and Saudi Arabia (what a trio...) "called for an holistic approach to internet governance as a means to fully implement enhanced cooperation, and for this to be materialised in a new centralised global inter-governmental mechanism". The quoted language is of course only a rough generalisation by those who made the report on the APC blog bec, for one, I certainly did not use those terms together anywhere but well.... The real issue here is that the APC blog report says that India, Iran, Saudi Arabia and myself made the above demand (as said, I never actually used the centralised, inter-gov term) while the fact is that it was Brazil that first presented this mime and repeated it the most number of times through the three days. (The transcripts of the three days are available on CSTD-WGEC website). The glaring omission of the name of Brazil who was the number one proponent of this 'approach' is therefore hopefully unintended, and I expect the authors of the report to amend their blog accordingly. What is even more interesting is that Adam in his report of the APC blog further drops even India from the list, which country rep more closely and clearly reflected Brazilian presentation of the mentioned "approach" than did Saudi Arabia and Iran. Adam seemed to be in a tearing hurry to make up his 'what a trio' story :). Now, if we indeed have to say the truth which is that Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia and Iran pushed for the mentioned 'approach', one easy way to say is that *all the developing country members* of the WGEC who spoke anything/ much substantial pushed for the mentioned 'approach' . Now that sounds quite different from the 'what a trio' story, doesnt it. > Parminder, I hope when you present these ill conceived notions you inform the WG that they are very much your own positions and not widely supported by civil society. They get no support when you mention on the IGC or bestbits lists. Firstly, as you know, the position IT for Change presented has the express support of scores of global NGOs and many many more individuals, and this wide support has been presented to the WGEC and to others... You can choose to stay oblivious of it. In the circumstances, I find repeated references to 'one civil society organisation' quite amusing. Even on IGC and BestBits list, there are many supporters of this view. The position that BestBits presented to the WGEC agreed on two elements of the presented idea of "an holistic approach to internet governance as a means to fully implement enhanced cooperation, and for this to be materialised in a new centralised global inter-governmental mechanism" - the 'holistic' part and corresponding need for a centralised treatment.... beyond that, the BB statement presented two options - one of which was an inter-gov platform with deep stakeholder consultations at all levels, and another which seems to want to include all stakeholders equally in actual process of decision making for 'public policy making'.... (I will come back to this latter position in my next email). In my next two emails, I will first present what in my view was really the biggest issue at the WGEC meeting, about which I would want views of both WGEC members and others. In a separate email then I will respond to the last issue of - whether I sought a closed list for what has been called as 'the correspondence group', from which allegation some cheap political capital is being sought to be made. parminder > > The live transcription was had to follow --in all uppercase letters rolling down the screen-- but it seems you tried to limit participation in the Correspondence Group mentioned in the summary Joy provided (to provide "analysis of issues/existing mechanisms/on-going activities") while the rest of civil society and others successfully kept it open to all. Is that right, you argued for a closed group? > > On our mailing lists you are full of talk if transparency and openness and then when in more closed surroundings you are actually a man of government and control. Not good. > > Adam > > > On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:39 AM, joy wrote: > >> Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general >> note on the summary of the meeting:http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/ >> >> regards >> >> Joy Liddicoat >> >> On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> Dear people, >>> >>> Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the >>> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting >>> just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest >>> edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in >>> Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. >>> >>> In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the >>> advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this >>> phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always >>> taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to >>> suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet. >>> >>> Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in >>> PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed >>> -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has >>> not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such, >>> and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet >>> requires periodic revisions. >>> >>> The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF >>> should follow, as described in its paragraph 72: >>> >>> ------ >>> 72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, >>> to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum >>> for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance >>> Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to: >>> >>> a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet >>> governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, >>> stability and development of the Internet. >>> >>> b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different >>> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and >>> discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body. >>> >>> c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other >>> institutions on matters under their purview. >>> >>> d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in >>> this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific >>> and technical communities. >>> >>> e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the >>> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world. >>> >>> f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing >>> and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from >>> developing countries. >>> >>> g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant >>> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations. >>> >>> h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing >>> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. >>> >>> i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS >>> principles in Internet governance processes. >>> >>> j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources. >>> >>> k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse >>> of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users. >>> >>> l) Publish its proceedings. >>> ------ >>> >>> It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF. >>> First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented >>> forum, not merely a sequence of events. >>> >>> Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be >>> generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which >>> have been basically ignored by the UN. >>> >>> The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its >>> mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda >>> have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which >>> is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically >>> on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the >>> expertises needed to carry out this challenge . >>> >>> It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or >>> might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it >>> might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process. >>> >>> As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced >>> cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development >>> (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN >>> General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has >>> revealed some worrying weaknesses . >>> >>> The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the >>> production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There >>> were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil >>> society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the >>> business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing >>> countries. >>> >>> It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including >>> the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the >>> APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of >>> the various views of the working group in relation to themes of >>> cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is >>> attached in PDF] >>> >>> The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal >>> the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis >>> Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet >>> Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively, >>> significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics >>> possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group >>> difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to >>> group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group >>> ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The >>> perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG >>> and the WSIS process is inevitable . >>> >>> One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants >>> are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not >>> necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar >>> to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both >>> the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report. >>> >>> Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this >>> process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate >>> below. >>> >>> A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an >>> interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and >>> possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for >>> easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of >>> the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and >>> consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their >>> suggestions: >>> >>> ------ >>> Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and >>> Observers >>> >>> 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a >>> reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living >>> document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and >>> responsibilities of all participants; >>> >>> 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined >>> by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles >>> were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva >>> Declaration of Principles; >>> >>> 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it >>> and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance; >>> >>> 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended >>> in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75; >>> >>> 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for >>> Enhanced Cooperation; >>> >>> 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms spring into existence organically >>> as they are needed and that there is no need to create new mechanisms >>> in a top down manner; >>> >>> 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand >>> internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking >>> into account, its multi-stakeholder nature; >>> >>> 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda >>> defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation; >>> >>> 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that >>> are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion >>> Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the >>> larger IGF community; >>> >>> 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the recommendations of the CSTD WG on >>> IGF Improvements including its mandate to give advice to the functional >>> Internet governance and management organizations; >>> >>> 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the >>> IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters >>> within their mandates; >>> >>> 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF >>> process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other >>> stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal >>> footing; >>> >>> 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to >>> participate in the IGF. >>> >>> 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all >>> stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and >>> to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced. >>> ------ >>> >>> In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but >>> essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced >>> cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around >>> these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative >>> processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the >>> generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance. >>> >>> On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the >>> governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden: >>> >>> ------ >>> - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of >>> all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet >>> governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative >>> working methods such as remote participation. >>> >>> - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate >>> through capactity building, including but not limited to, training >>> programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing. >>> >>> - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and >>> consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates >>> affordable access for all stakeholders. >>> >>> - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to >>> empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework >>> that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights >>> online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support >>> mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships. >>> ------ >>> >>> At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can >>> help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fsylla at gmail.com Sun Nov 17 11:00:27 2013 From: fsylla at gmail.com (Fatimata Seye Sylla) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 16:00:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I support Nnenna's nomination for the MAG 2013/11/17, Kabani : > We proposed that those whom have served MAG before should not consider this > time and let other members served the MAG. > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> This is to advise that these are the current nominations received for MAG >> Candidates that will go through the process of selection by a randomly >> selected NomCom. >> >> Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse >> and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >> >> 1. >> >> Asif Kabani >> 2. >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> 3. >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe >> 4. >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> 5. >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> 6. >> >> Katim S Touray >> 7. >> >> Stuart Hamilton >> >> >> Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting >> clarification >> > > > -- > Sent from iPad > -- Fatimata Seye Sylla ICT4D, Education & Genre -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 12:20:29 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:20:29 -0200 Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons Message-ID: Dear IGC, As you can imagine, since Bali and in light of the “multistakeholder” event that will be hosted by the Brazil on the future on Internet Governance called: *"Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future on Internet Governance," *it becomes inherently critical that we start preparing to shape the Agenda. Many thanks to Carlos and Hartmut for keeping us informed of what is happening within Brazil and for taking the time to translate from Portuguese to English when the need demands. Unfortunately, there were no live transcripts although transcripts will be provided unlike the live stream available to the GAC community (tongue in cheek). To watch the vide of Fadi speaking: http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157637762195684 ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadi spoke about the manner in which ICANN is going to engage in what I thought was a very mature response symbolic of the desire to engage with communities. As you can imagine in the lead up to the preparations for 2014 we as global civil society need to consolidate to prepare. There have been discussions going on offlist amongst the various facilitators of some of the core civil society groups about how this is to take place where it has centered on the possibilities of a joint framework for engagement of civil society including Multistakeholder selection processes for some of the key positions. There was suggestion to experiment first with the combined NomCom for the MAG and I highlighted that this could be difficult in light of the pressing deadlines. There may be room however for joint endorsements but I will leave this to the NomCom Chair. At this point, I do not want to burden our NomCom as they are working against a very narrow and tight deadline. Whilst we are waiting for the other groups to comment on coordinated and shared framework for engagement, I would like to propose the following to the IGC. Given that we do not have time nor the resources, it has been by way of an ad hoc nature common for people who are involved in foras or diverse communities to provide feedback on what is happening randomly. This to a large extent happens but my sense is that we need to be better coordinated and have different people watch the different spaces they are in and liaise back with the IGC. I suggested that this could be done with and through combined civil society but I think we need to pick up the pace and start anyway whilst waiting. To this extent, I would propose that in the spirit of enhanced cooperation that we use our own people within civil society who happen to wear multiple hats to act as liaisons, even if temporary at this point until such time where we can coordinate more permanent representation. I feel that the IGC should have liaisons in the following circles: · Technical Community · Business Community · Governments The liaisons role would be to be a bridge into these communities to channel developments of what is happening within these communities that are of relevance to civil society and also from time to time raise the issues of civil society or broker and facilitate the process through which these views can be heard. If there are people who feel they can function in these roles, we need volunteers. This is to ensure that we know what is happening at all times. The IGC has two options, we can utilize a formal process and invite calls for nominations and have a NomCom make the selection. On another note, we can maintain the informal ad hoc liaison process that is currently in place. My personal preference is for the latter to allow for volunteers who are consistent and command the respect of the diverse communities. Given the current deadlines and politics surrounding the 2014 Meeting in Brazil, I propose that we have *George Sadowski *to act as liaison for us to the technical community. I am of the view that we can have at least two to three liaisons as the Technical Community is diverse and spread out between the ETSI, W3C, ITU-T, IETF, ICANN, IAB, RIR etc. For now the liaison function can be limited to the developments of the Rio engagement with room to evolve into identifying issues affecting global public interest that civil society might want to monitor in a consistent and cohesive manner. Whilst George is also a member of the ICANN Board, I am not asking him as an ICANN Board member but as a member of the IGC. If there are those that wish to join George in this role, there is nothing stopping a list of volunteers from being part of a team that condenses the issues in diverse stratas and feeds it back into the IGC in a consolidated manner. As we engage in coming to the table to set the Agenda, we need to do so intelligently and cohesively and in a coordinated manner. This was one of the things raised in the meeting in Bali- In the future as the IGC evolves, there is space to develop a working group to focus on technical and policy stratas that we may wish to organize our advocacies in. For a long while, advocacy has been happening via individuals or groups that have pet topics and issues. Kind Regards, Sala (In my personal capacity) George Sadowski Profile and Biography GEORGE SADOWSKY: BIOGRAPHY George Sadowsky is currently a member of the Board of Directors of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and a consultant to, inter alia, the World Wide Web Foundation and NATO. He received an A.B. degree with honors in Mathematics from Harvard College and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Economics from Yale University. After spending 1958-1962 as an applied mathematician and programmer, his career concentrated on applying computers to economic and social policy, leading academic computing and networking organizations, and making information and communication technologies (ICTs) useful throughout the world. In 1963-64 he introduced the use of microsimulation for tax analysis purposes in the U.S. Treasury Department. During 1966-1970 he founded and directed the Computer Center at the Brookings Institution in Washington; from 1970-73 he did economic research at the Urban Institute leading to his Ph.D, dissertation on the subject of micro-analytic simulation of the household sector. During 1973-86 at the United Nations, he supported the transfer of information technology to developing countries. He has done work in more than 50 developing countries and continues to do so. Among other things, he introduced the use of microcomputers for census data processing in Africa in 1979, and he worked in China during 1982-1986 supporting the computing activities of their 1982 Census of Population and Housing. From 1986 to 2001, he directed academic computing and networking activities, first at Northwestern University and then at New York University. He has been a consultant to the U.S. Treasury Department, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, UNDP, the Swiss Government, and a number of foundations. He was a Board member of AppliedTheory Corporation and was a Trustee of the Corporation for Research and Educational Networking (CREN) and the New York State Educational and Research Network (NYSERNet). He was actively involved in World Bank activities during 1996-2002 as a member and Coordinator of the Technical Advisory Panel for the infoDev program, as well as in UNDP and USAID activities. In 1994, he and Larry Landweber formulated USAID's Leland Initiative for providing initial Internet connectivity for 20 African countries. He was a member of the Internet Society Board of Trustees during 1996-1999 and 2000-2004 and served as Vice President for Conferences (1996-1998) and Vice- President for Education (1998-2001). He headed a group of ISOC volunteers who defined and conducted the ISOC Developing Country Network Training Workshops during 1993 -2001. More recently, he was the Executive Director of the Global Internet Policy Initiative (GIPI) from 2001-2006, which had active ongoing Internet policy reform projects in 17 countries. He also served as Senior Technical Adviser within USAID's dot-GOV program for the Internews Consortium, providing ICT policy assistance to the developing world. He has served as an expert witness for litigation in the United Kingdom and the United States. He was a special adviser to Nitin Desai, the Chair of the UN Secretary-General's Internet Governance Forum as well as to the Chair of UN G at ID. He has served as a member of the PIR (Public Internet Registry) Advisory Board, and he is currently a member of the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) Board of Directors He has written and lectured extensively on Please refer to his web site, http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ as well as the GIPI web site, http:// www.internetpolicy.net, for additional information. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sun Nov 17 13:13:50 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:13:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5289075E.2050608@apc.org> My too. Nnenna would be an excellent MAG member. Anriette On 17/11/2013 18:00, Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote: > I support Nnenna's nomination for the MAG > > > 2013/11/17, Kabani : >> We proposed that those whom have served MAG before should not consider this >> time and let other members served the MAG. >> >> On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> This is to advise that these are the current nominations received for MAG >>> Candidates that will go through the process of selection by a randomly >>> selected NomCom. >>> >>> Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse >>> and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> Asif Kabani >>> 2. >>> >>> Rudi Vansnick >>> 3. >>> >>> Sonigitu Ekpe >>> 4. >>> >>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>> 5. >>> >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> 6. >>> >>> Katim S Touray >>> 7. >>> >>> Stuart Hamilton >>> >>> >>> Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting >>> clarification >>> >> >> -- >> Sent from iPad >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From me at gbengasesan.com Sun Nov 17 13:16:22 2013 From: me at gbengasesan.com ('Gbenga Sesan) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:16:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: <5289075E.2050608@apc.org> References: <5289075E.2050608@apc.org> Message-ID: <9D7D9150-52EF-4C45-8214-F8D38BAB68AA@gbengasesan.com> +1 for Nnenna MAG nomination. --- 'Gbenga Sesan @gbengasesan www.gbengasesan.com On Nov 17, 2013, at 7:13 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > My too. Nnenna would be an excellent MAG member. > > Anriette > > > On 17/11/2013 18:00, Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote: >> I support Nnenna's nomination for the MAG >> >> >> 2013/11/17, Kabani : >>> We proposed that those whom have served MAG before should not consider this >>> time and let other members served the MAG. >>> >>> On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> This is to advise that these are the current nominations received for MAG >>>> Candidates that will go through the process of selection by a randomly >>>> selected NomCom. >>>> >>>> Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse >>>> and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> Asif Kabani >>>> 2. >>>> >>>> Rudi Vansnick >>>> 3. >>>> >>>> Sonigitu Ekpe >>>> 4. >>>> >>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>> 5. >>>> >>>> Fouad Bajwa >>>> 6. >>>> >>>> Katim S Touray >>>> 7. >>>> >>>> Stuart Hamilton >>>> >>>> >>>> Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting >>>> clarification >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from iPad >>> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 14:26:08 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 16:26:08 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] NEW - English Version of Brazilian Marco Civil Bill In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Anne, I am planning to do the translation myself, but right now I am in the Icann meeting with very little time for this. The original interview is actually larger, so my attempt will be to convert it to a full article. In the meantime, could you send me phrase/paragraph you had trouble with? frt rgds --c.a. sent from a dumbphone > On 17/11/2013, at 10:59, Anne Jellema wrote: > > Thanks Carolina. Google Translate does a real hatchet job on this interview, and I'm struggling and failing to understand CA's remarks on the data localisation amendment. If anyone who reads Portuguese better than me, or who can decipher Google-ese better than me, could post a brief summary (even just a few lines), I'd be very grateful! > many thanks > Anne > > >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> Regarding Eduardo's question, I suggest you take a look (with help of Google translate :-) ) at this very clarifying interview CA has given recently: >> >> http://www.nupef.org.br/?q=node/112 >> >> >>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>> Thanks a lot Carolina. This is extremely helpful to understand the domestic process in Brazil. >>> >>> I have a question to you and my fellow brazilian colleagues. You said in your email that the new version received great support from the Brazilian civil society. Does this support include the support of the new art. 11, 12 and 13? >>> >>> I would like to receive the reactions/comments from other people in the network. Maybe I am missing something but those articles includes provisions that form me, first, are not very realistic from an implementation perspective, and second, if this idea is supported in Brazil, I don´t know how we will oppose the same idea for other countries that could use the provisions to go against local civil society groups. >>> >>> I copied below the articles mentioned above: >>> >>> Art. 11. Any process of collection, storage, custody and treatment of records, personal data or communications by connection providers and Internet applications providers, in which at least one of these acts occurs in the national territory, shall respect Brazilian law, the rights to Privacy, and the confidentiality of personal data, of private communications and records. >>> >>> § 1 The provisions aforementioned apply to data collected in the national territory and the content of communications, in which at least one of the terminals is located in Brazil. >>> >>> § 2 The provisions aforementioned apply even if the activities are carried out by legal entity located abroad, provided that at least one member of the same economic group owns property/is established in Brazil. >>> >>> § 3 The connection providers and Internet applications provider shall provide, in the form of regulations, information that allow the verification regarding compliance with Brazilian legislation regarding the collection, custody, storage and processing of data, as well as how the provider respects the privacy and secrecy of communications. >>> >>> § 4 Decree shall regulate the procedure for finding violations of the provisions of this article. >>> >>> Article 12. The Executive Branch, through Decree, may force connection providers and Internet applications providers provided for in art. 11, who exercise their activities in an organized, professional and economic way, to install or use structures for storage, management and dissemination of data in the country, considering the size of the providers, its sales in Brazil and breadth of the service offering to the Brazilian public. >>> >>> Article 13. Without prejudice to other civil, criminal or administrative penalties, violations of the rules laid down in Articles 10, 11 and 12 shall be subject, as appropriate, the following sanctions, applied individually or cumulatively: >>> >>> I - warning, indicating the deadline for corrective action; >>> >>> II - a fine of up to ten percent of the gross revenues of the economic group in Brazil in its last financial year, excluding taxes; >>> >>> III - Temporary suspension of activities involving the acts specified in Clauses 11 and 12, or >>> >>> IV - the prohibition of the exercise of activities that involve the acts referred to in Articles 11 and 12. >>> >>> Single paragraph. In the case of a foreign company, its subsidiary, branch, office or establishment in the country will be jointly and severally liable for payment of the penalties aforementioned. >>> >>> I look forward to hearing from you. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> e >>> >>> >>> >>> Eduardo >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> *** sorry for cross-posting *** >>>> >>>> during the past few days I used some hours translating the new version of the Marco Civil made public last week. >>>> >>>> This version has receive great support of the Brazilian civil society and has also gather great (but not yet enough) support from legislators. >>>> >>>> Please, find it attached. The first column was the initial public text, the second one IS THE NEW OFFICIAL version and the third one its translation. The text in yellow are some of the core changes...however, they do not mirror what was deleted. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> C >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Carolina Rossini >>>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>>> Open Technology Institute >>>> New America Foundation >>>> // >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>> skype: carolrossini >>>> @carolinarossini >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> Carolina Rossini >> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >> Open Technology Institute >> New America Foundation >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > Chief Executive Officer > Cape Town, RSA > mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9652 > tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 > tel (US) +1 202 684 6885 > Skype anne.jellema > @afjellema > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Nov 17 14:28:48 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 06:28:48 +1100 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees In-Reply-To: References: <52841C45.7050706@itforchange.net><26712674-2DDA-4677-B7CD-B1CC52154948@hserus.net> Message-ID: <956C2675B93947EFAED6827C016ABFAC@Toshiba> Just a quick note and update - within 24 hours we will be posting on IGC list the selection criteria to be used by the Nomcom for this years MAG nominations. Nominees or their nominators will be given an opportunity to provide statements to the MAG in support of their nomination providing background relevant to the nomination. We will at the same time provide a list of nominations received to date, plus the opportunity for late nominations over the next couple of days. This will be short because of our very tight deadlines. More to come within a day. Ian Peter (non voting Nomcom chair) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 14:39:16 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 04:39:16 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] my views and short report -- UNWGEC In-Reply-To: <5288E5DB.10903@itforchange.net> References: <5280DECF.9050400@cafonso.ca> <5282AE07.5000308@apc.org> <5288E5DB.10903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <04D86BD4-9B24-41B3-8BAC-78BCA7C45E8D@glocom.ac.jp> Parminder On Nov 18, 2013, at 12:50 AM, parminder wrote: > Adam > > "On our mailing lists you are full of talk if transparency and openness and then when in more closed surroundings you are actually a man of government and control. Not good." (Adam) > I find the tone and tenor of your email very objectionable. It makes direct ad hominem characterisations. I have asked for IGC cocos opinion on it, and after hearing from them will exercise my options... > "On our mailing lists you are full of talk if transparency and openness" fact. "then when in more closed surroundings you are actually a man of government and control" fact (as anyone who followed the recent WGEC and can read the transcripts can confirm) "Not good." fact. I am sorry you seem to feel such a victim (and there you were in Bali abusing people all over the place). I am sure Norbert and Sala will have an opinion. Anyone else who followed the recent CSTD WG discussions wish to chip in? Thanks, Adam > Meanwhile, below is my response to the substantive issues you raise. (Hopefully, as I am answering all the questions aimed at me, others would agree to do so too about issues that I will presently raise about the WGEC meeting. This is an important political discussion.) > > On Wednesday 13 November 2013 07:28 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Thanks Joy. >> >> Disappointing to see Parminder partnering with Iran and Saudi Arabia (what a trio...) "called for an holistic approach to internet governance as a means to fully implement enhanced cooperation, and for this to be materialised in a new centralised global inter-governmental mechanism". >> > The quoted language is of course only a rough generalisation by those who made the report on the APC blog bec, for one, I certainly did not use those terms together anywhere but well.... The real issue here is that the APC blog report says that India, Iran, Saudi Arabia and myself made the above demand (as said, I never actually used the centralised, inter-gov term) while the fact is that it was Brazil that first presented this mime and repeated it the most number of times through the three days. (The transcripts of the three days are available on CSTD-WGEC website). The glaring omission of the name of Brazil who was the number one proponent of this 'approach' is therefore hopefully unintended, and I expect the authors of the report to amend their blog accordingly. > > What is even more interesting is that Adam in his report of the APC blog further drops even India from the list, which country rep more closely and clearly reflected Brazilian presentation of the mentioned "approach" than did Saudi Arabia and Iran. Adam seemed to be in a tearing hurry to make up his 'what a trio' story :). > > Now, if we indeed have to say the truth which is that Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia and Iran pushed for the mentioned 'approach', one easy way to say is that *all the developing country members* of the WGEC who spoke anything/ much substantial pushed for the mentioned 'approach' . Now that sounds quite different from the 'what a trio' story, doesnt it. > >> Parminder, I hope when you present these ill conceived notions you inform the WG that they are very much your own positions and not widely supported by civil society. They get no support when you mention on the IGC or bestbits lists. > > Firstly, as you know, the position IT for Change presented has the express support of scores of global NGOs and many many more individuals, and this wide support has been presented to the WGEC and to others... You can choose to stay oblivious of it. In the circumstances, I find repeated references to 'one civil society organisation' quite amusing. > > Even on IGC and BestBits list, there are many supporters of this view. The position that BestBits presented to the WGEC agreed on two elements of the presented idea of "an holistic approach to internet governance as a means to fully implement enhanced cooperation, and for this to be materialised in a new centralised global inter-governmental mechanism" - the 'holistic' part and corresponding need for a centralised treatment.... beyond that, the BB statement presented two options - one of which was an inter-gov platform with deep stakeholder consultations at all levels, and another which seems to want to include all stakeholders equally in actual process of decision making for 'public policy making'.... (I will come back to this latter position in my next email). > > In my next two emails, I will first present what in my view was really the biggest issue at the WGEC meeting, about which I would want views of both WGEC members and others. In a separate email then I will respond to the last issue of - whether I sought a closed list for what has been called as 'the correspondence group', from which allegation some cheap political capital is being sought to be made. > > parminder > >> >> The live transcription was had to follow --in all uppercase letters rolling down the screen-- but it seems you tried to limit participation in the Correspondence Group mentioned in the summary Joy provided (to provide "analysis of issues/existing mechanisms/on-going activities") while the rest of civil society and others successfully kept it open to all. Is that right, you argued for a closed group? >> >> On our mailing lists you are full of talk if transparency and openness and then when in more closed surroundings you are actually a man of government and control. Not good. >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:39 AM, joy wrote: >> >> >>> Thanks Carlos - and adding a link to a blog post with a more general >>> note on the summary of the meeting: >>> http://www.apc.org/en/node/18717/ >>> >>> >>> regards >>> >>> Joy Liddicoat >>> >>> On 12/11/2013 2:42 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>>> Dear people, >>>> >>>> Here are my *personal* views and a short report as a participant in the >>>> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (UNWGEC) -- its second meeting >>>> just happened in Geneva (6-8 of November). It just follows the latest >>>> edition of the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held last October in >>>> Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. >>>> >>>> In the discussion of enhanced cooperation among nations for the >>>> advancement of the information society and knowledge (and with this >>>> phrase I try to synthesize my view of the subject), the IGF is always >>>> taken into account, both to highlight its (relative) relevance and to >>>> suggest the way forward for international governance of the Internet. >>>> >>>> Several governments also insist that the 2005 Tunis Agenda (attached in >>>> PDF), a non-binding commitment among governments, should not be changed >>>> -- some even hail the Agenda as a "bible" to be followed, even if it has >>>> not been followed by some of the very governments which view it as such, >>>> and even if the dynamics of rapid worldwide development of the Internet >>>> requires periodic revisions. >>>> >>>> The Tunis Agenda contains a lengthy specification of the mandate the IGF >>>> should follow, as described in its paragraph 72: >>>> >>>> ------ >>>> 72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, >>>> to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum >>>> for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance >>>> Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to: >>>> >>>> a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet >>>> governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, >>>> stability and development of the Internet. >>>> >>>> b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different >>>> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and >>>> discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body. >>>> >>>> c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other >>>> institutions on matters under their purview. >>>> >>>> d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in >>>> this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific >>>> and technical communities. >>>> >>>> e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the >>>> availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world. >>>> >>>> f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing >>>> and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from >>>> developing countries. >>>> >>>> g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant >>>> bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations. >>>> >>>> h) Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing >>>> countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. >>>> >>>> i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS >>>> principles in Internet governance processes. >>>> >>>> j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources. >>>> >>>> k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse >>>> of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users. >>>> >>>> l) Publish its proceedings. >>>> ------ >>>> >>>> It is clear that this broad mandate is not being fulfilled by the IGF. >>>> First of all, these items show that the IGF should be a process-oriented >>>> forum, not merely a sequence of events. >>>> >>>> Secondly, there are clear references to recommendations that should be >>>> generated by the IGF -- for example items e, g , h , and i --, which >>>> have been basically ignored by the UN. >>>> >>>> The fact is that the IGF is leaving aside significant components of its >>>> mandate, and even governments which swear fidelity to the Tunis Agenda >>>> have not given importance to these shortcomings. Further, the MAG (which >>>> is dedicated only to organize each yearly event ) is composed basically >>>> on UN-filtered sectorial representation but not the necessarily on the >>>> expertises needed to carry out this challenge . >>>> >>>> It is therefore necessary to rethink the IGF if it is deemed to be (or >>>> might become) a central instance of enhanced cooperation. Otherwise it >>>> might be replaced in favor of other ways to advance this process. >>>> >>>> As for WGEC , whose goal is to deliver recommendations on enhanced >>>> cooperation to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development >>>> (UN UNCSTD) in the first half of 2014, which will be brought to the UN >>>> General Assembly in September of the same year, the work so far has >>>> revealed some worrying weaknesses . >>>> >>>> The central result of the first meeting of WGEC, in June 2013, was the >>>> production of a questionnaire that was answered by all sectors. There >>>> were 69 responses , thus distributed: 29 from governments, 23 from civil >>>> society, 11 from the "technical-academic" sector, and eight from the >>>> business sector. More than half of the responses came from developing >>>> countries. >>>> >>>> It produced a consolidation of the results with some flaws (including >>>> the mistakenly taking responses from the Best Bits group of NGOs for the >>>> APC responses), but even so the consolidation gave a reasonable idea of >>>> the various views of the working group in relation to themes of >>>> cooperation and improved governance of the Internet. [summary is >>>> attached in PDF] >>>> >>>> The summary and procedures in the second meeting (6-8 November) reveal >>>> the risk of retracing the path already followed for building the Tunis >>>> Agenda, as well as the efforts of the Working Group on Internet >>>> Governance (WGIG , which met November 2004 to June 2005). Effectively, >>>> significant time was consumed in preparing a list of over 300 topics >>>> possibly related to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation. Group >>>> difficulties in dealing with such a number of issues in order to try to >>>> group them into key issues was such that we constituted a specific group >>>> ("correspondence group") to come up with a short list of topics. The >>>> perception of "déjà-vu" for the old-timers who participated in the WGIG >>>> and the WSIS process is inevitable . >>>> >>>> One of the problems of a working group like this is that participants >>>> are defined in terms of their sectoral representations and not >>>> necessarily because of their expertise on the issues (something similar >>>> to what occurs with MAG). This creates an additional difficulty for both >>>> the consolidation of the issues and the drafting of a qualified report. >>>> >>>> Faced with the lack of time and the uncertainties generated by this >>>> process, some sectors have presented concrete proposals, which I relate >>>> below. >>>> >>>> A group of civil society organizations and individuals presented an >>>> interesting list of possible recommendations to be evaluated and >>>> possibly adopted in the final report WGEC (I added the numbering for >>>> easy future reference). I have reservations about the effectiveness of >>>> the role of IGF so far, but overall I agree with the approach and >>>> consider a contribution to guiding the future WGEC report. Their >>>> suggestions: >>>> >>>> ------ >>>> Draft recommendations bullets prepared by a group of WGEC Members and >>>> Observers >>>> >>>> 1- Acknowledges that the Tunis Agenda, if it is to continue as a >>>> reference point for all stakeholders, should be considered as a living >>>> document which needs to be updated to reflect the roles and >>>> responsibilities of all participants; >>>> >>>> 2- Encourages the rethinking of the stakeholder roles that were defined >>>> by governments unilaterally in the Tunis Agenda, noting that these roles >>>> were originally defined by governments in December 2003, Geneva >>>> Declaration of Principles; >>>> >>>> 3- Affirms that the internet belongs to everyone: everyone can use it >>>> and everyone can improve it: this also applies to its governance; >>>> >>>> 4- Acknowledges that Enhanced Cooperation is well underway as intended >>>> in Tunis Agenda paragraphs 67 through 75; >>>> >>>> 5- Concludes that no new multilateral arrangements, are required for >>>> Enhanced Cooperation; >>>> >>>> 6- Acknowledges that new mechanisms spring into existence organically >>>> as they are needed and that there is no need to create new mechanisms >>>> in a top down manner; >>>> >>>> 7- Acknowledges the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand >>>> internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking >>>> into account, its multi-stakeholder nature; >>>> >>>> 8- Congratulates the IGF for its work in meeting its Tunis Agenda >>>> defined role in fostering Enhanced Cooperation; >>>> >>>> 9- Encourages the IGF to cover all issues of Internet governance that >>>> are of concern to stakeholders and to form ongoing Issue Discussion >>>> Groups within the IGF to make recommendations on these issues to the >>>> larger IGF community; >>>> >>>> 10- Encourages the IGF to follow the recommendations of the CSTD WG on >>>> IGF Improvements including its mandate to give advice to the functional >>>> Internet governance and management organizations; >>>> >>>> 11- Encourages those making public policy to engage more fully in the >>>> IGF and to bring to the IGF their questions on internet related matters >>>> within their mandates; >>>> >>>> 12- Encourages all governments to commit to the IGF, and to use the IGF >>>> process as an opportunity not just to engage with all other >>>> stakeholders, but as an opportunity to work with each other on an equal >>>> footing; >>>> >>>> 13- Invites all Internet governance and management organizations to >>>> participate in the IGF. >>>> >>>> 14- Reinforces the multistakeholder approach and encourages all >>>> stakeholders to engage more in and work with existing organisations and >>>> to explore ways in which stakeholder engagement can be enhanced. >>>> ------ >>>> >>>> In summary , the path is to focus , focus , focus on a small but >>>> essential set of topics and try to build proposals for enhanced >>>> cooperation among nations (rather than just among governments) around >>>> these themes (and this points to the requirement of pluriparticipative >>>> processes all along). Otherwise, the WGEC will end up replaying the >>>> generalities of much of the Tunis Agenda and will barely advance. >>>> >>>> On the side of governments, suggested guidelines came from the >>>> governments of Brazil, Mexico, the UK and Sweden: >>>> >>>> ------ >>>> - Members [of the UN] should explore ways to strenghten participation of >>>> all stakeholders from developing countries in existing global internet >>>> governance fora including through funding mechanisms and alternative >>>> working methods such as remote participation. >>>> >>>> - Members should increase efforts to empower stakeholders to particpate >>>> through capactity building, including but not limited to, training >>>> programs, awarness raising, best practice sharing. >>>> >>>> - Members should work with developing countries to create a fair and >>>> consistent domestic framework that stimulates competition and creates >>>> affordable access for all stakeholders. >>>> >>>> - The role of governments should include, but not be limited to, to >>>> empower internet users, ensure a fair and consistent legal framework >>>> that is transparent accountable and equitable and protect human rights >>>> online, to foster a robust global internet infrastructure and support >>>> mulitstakeholder processes and partnerships. >>>> ------ >>>> >>>> At this point , I believe the proper junction of the two proposals can >>>> help speed up the process towards the final report of the WGEC. >>>> >>>> fraternal regards >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Nov 17 15:34:34 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:34:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees Message-ID: I do hope the Nomcom selects people who have a clear perception that the IGF is not fulfilling its mandate as per the 12 items of para.72 of the Tunis Agenda and commit to a significant change in its actions and approach (please take a look at my WGEC report). *But* I am not sure how to insert this in the criteria. And an explicit comitment to this might mean rejection by the UNSA... fraternal regards --c.a. ps: I am not a candidate. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Ian Peter Date: 17-11-2013 17:28 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees   Just a quick note and update -   within 24 hours we will be posting on IGC list the selection criteria to be used by the Nomcom for this years MAG nominations.  Nominees or their nominators will be given an opportunity to provide statements to the MAG in support of their nomination providing background relevant to the nomination.   We will at the same time provide a list of nominations received to date, plus the opportunity for late nominations over the next couple of days. This will be short because of our very tight deadlines.   More to come within a day.     Ian Peter (non voting Nomcom chair) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 15:42:58 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:42:58 -0200 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees Message-ID: I meant UNSG, of course. Sorry... ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" Date: 17-11-2013 18:34 (GMT-03:00) To: Ian Peter ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees I do hope the Nomcom selects people who have a clear perception that the IGF is not fulfilling its mandate as per the 12 items of para.72 of the Tunis Agenda and commit to a significant change in its actions and approach (please take a look at my WGEC report). *But* I am not sure how to insert this in the criteria. And an explicit comitment to this might mean rejection by the UNSA... fraternal regards --c.a. ps: I am not a candidate. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Ian Peter Date: 17-11-2013 17:28 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees   Just a quick note and update -   within 24 hours we will be posting on IGC list the selection criteria to be used by the Nomcom for this years MAG nominations.  Nominees or their nominators will be given an opportunity to provide statements to the MAG in support of their nomination providing background relevant to the nomination.   We will at the same time provide a list of nominations received to date, plus the opportunity for late nominations over the next couple of days. This will be short because of our very tight deadlines.   More to come within a day.     Ian Peter (non voting Nomcom chair) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 16:04:42 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:04:42 +1300 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_the_sel?= =?UTF-8?Q?ection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=C3=A4chter_as_a_member_to_the_ICANN_B?= =?UTF-8?Q?oard_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> Message-ID: <52892F6A.8080906@apc.org> Congratulations Wolfgang - that is really excellent news! Joy On 17/11/2013 10:24 p.m., Kabani wrote: > Congrats Wolfgang > > On Saturday, November 16, 2013, John Curran wrote: > > > > FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) > /John > > > > > > -- > 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 tracey at traceynaughton.com Sun Nov 17 16:59:19 2013 From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:59:19 +1100 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?2013_ICANN_pleased_to_announce_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_selection_of_Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter_as_a_member_to_the_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ICANN_Board_of_Directors=2E?= In-Reply-To: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> References: <248825F2-6F92-483F-A714-60717604B208@istaff.org> Message-ID: Great News! Thanks for your consistent and sound work Wolfgang. Tracey Naughton Australia On 16 Nov 2013, at 10:41 am, John Curran wrote: > > > FYI (and congrats Wolfgang!) > /John > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sun Nov 17 17:05:46 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:05:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52893DBA.8060503@apc.org> Dear c.a. The report of the working group on IGF improvements actually went a long way towards recognising where the IGF is not meeting its mandate, and it does make recommendations for the IGF to do this. It could have said more - we spent a lot of time evaluating the extent to which the IGF had met its mandate or not, but some of the participants in the group did not want to go into to much detail, in part because they did not want a more empowered IGF. Nevertheless, speaking as a MAG member for the past year and a half, I think that most people on the MAG at present do want the IGF to do more. That era where some of the influential people in the IGF did not want it to achieve anything or take any risks is actually over. Other people on the MAG can share their views. The bottleneck is capacity and leadership. Without political leadership, a special adviser, resources, and senior staff at secretariat level the IGF will not break through the barriers necessary for it to effectively do what paragraph 72 says it should. Can the MAG change this? I don't think so. I think what we need is for UN member states to make a resolution that goes to the UNGA on strenghtening IGF capacity, and for ALL stakeholder groups to write to the UN SG urging him to appoint the special advisor as soon as possible. We should ask that the appointment be made in a way that consults all stakeholders. I suspect that is not an option, but we could still ask. Anriette On 17/11/2013 22:42, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I meant UNSG, of course. Sorry... > > > > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > Date: 17-11-2013 18:34 (GMT-03:00) > To: Ian Peter ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees > > > I do hope the Nomcom selects people who have a clear perception that > the IGF is not fulfilling its mandate as per the 12 items of para.72 > of the Tunis Agenda and commit to a significant change in its actions > and approach (please take a look at my WGEC report). > > *But* I am not sure how to insert this in the criteria. And an > explicit comitment to this might mean rejection by the UNSA... > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ps: I am not a candidate. > > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Ian Peter > Date: 17-11-2013 17:28 (GMT-03:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees > > > > Just a quick note and update - > > within 24 hours we will be posting on IGC list the selection criteria > to be used by the Nomcom for this years MAG nominations. Nominees or > their nominators will be given an opportunity to provide statements to > the MAG in support of their nomination providing background relevant > to the nomination. > > We will at the same time provide a list of nominations received to > date, plus the opportunity for late nominations over the next couple > of days. This will be short because of our very tight deadlines. > > More to come within a day. > > > Ian Peter > (non voting Nomcom chair) -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From babatope at gmail.com Sun Nov 17 17:14:04 2013 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:14:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: <9D7D9150-52EF-4C45-8214-F8D38BAB68AA@gbengasesan.com> References: <5289075E.2050608@apc.org> <9D7D9150-52EF-4C45-8214-F8D38BAB68AA@gbengasesan.com> Message-ID: +1 for Nnenna's MAG nomination, pls. On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:16 PM, 'Gbenga Sesan wrote: > +1 for Nnenna MAG nomination. > > *---* > *'Gbenga Sesan* > @gbengasesan > www.gbengasesan.com > > On Nov 17, 2013, at 7:13 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > My too. Nnenna would be an excellent MAG member. > > Anriette > > > On 17/11/2013 18:00, Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote: > > I support Nnenna's nomination for the MAG > > > 2013/11/17, Kabani : > > We proposed that those whom have served MAG before should not consider this > time and let other members served the MAG. > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > This is to advise that these are the current nominations received for MAG > Candidates that will go through the process of selection by a randomly > selected NomCom. > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > 1. > > Asif Kabani > 2. > > Rudi Vansnick > 3. > > Sonigitu Ekpe > 4. > > Imran Ahmed Shah > 5. > > Fouad Bajwa > 6. > > Katim S Touray > 7. > > Stuart Hamilton > > > Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting > clarification > > > -- > Sent from iPad > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Babatope Soremi A destructive means can not bring about a constructive end.... TB Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of intelligent effort. *John Ruskin * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sun Nov 17 19:08:36 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:08:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <5289075E.2050608@apc.org> <9D7D9150-52EF-4C45-8214-F8D38BAB68AA@gbengasesan.com> Message-ID: +1 for Nenna. Her speech at Bali IGF opening representing the CS was great. Izumi 2013年11月18日月曜日 Babatope Soremi babatope at gmail.com: > +1 for Nnenna's MAG nomination, pls. > > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:16 PM, 'Gbenga Sesan > > wrote: > >> +1 for Nnenna MAG nomination. >> >> *---* >> *'Gbenga Sesan* >> @gbengasesan >> www.gbengasesan.com >> >> On Nov 17, 2013, at 7:13 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > >> wrote: >> >> My too. Nnenna would be an excellent MAG member. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 17/11/2013 18:00, Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote: >> >> I support Nnenna's nomination for the MAG >> >> >> 2013/11/17, Kabani > 'kabani.asif at gmail.com');>>: >> >> We proposed that those whom have served MAG before should not consider >> this >> time and let other members served the MAG. >> >> On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> This is to advise that these are the current nominations received for MAG >> Candidates that will go through the process of selection by a randomly >> selected NomCom. >> >> Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse >> and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >> >> 1. >> >> Asif Kabani >> 2. >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> 3. >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe >> 4. >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> 5. >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> 6. >> >> Katim S Touray >> 7. >> >> Stuart Hamilton >> >> >> Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting >> clarification >> >> >> -- >> Sent from iPad >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > '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 > 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org');> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org');> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Babatope Soremi > > A destructive means can not bring about a constructive end.... > > TB > > > Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of intelligent > effort. > > *John Ruskin * > -- >> 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 jcurran at istaff.org Sun Nov 17 19:43:08 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:43:08 -0300 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance Message-ID: A high-level panel has been organized to consider the issues surrounding global Internet cooperation - "The Panel plans to release a high-level report in early 2014 for public comment. The report will include principles for global Internet cooperation, proposed frameworks for such cooperation and a roadmap for future Internet governance challenges." FYI, /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 17 19:53:07 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 06:23:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14268b239e0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Nice list I must say. And where exactly will the recommendations from this panel feed into? Other than icann I mean. thanks --srs (htc one x) On 18 November 2013 6:13:08 AM John Curran wrote: > A high-level panel has been organized to consider the issues surrounding > global Internet cooperation - > "The Panel plans to release a high-level report in early 2014 for public > comment. The report will include principles for global Internet > cooperation, proposed frameworks for such cooperation and a roadmap for > future Internet governance challenges." > > > > FYI, > /John > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Sun Nov 17 20:15:07 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:15:07 -0300 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <14268b239e0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <14268b239e0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Nov 17, 2013, at 9:53 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Nice list I must say. And where exactly will the recommendations from this panel feed into? It appears to be intended as an input into the Brazil meeting; I have heard that there will be an call for proposals for input to that meeting (open to all & due sometime early next year) and this was a consideration in the timing of organizing the high-level panel. (I am still trying to get hard confirmation of these details to share here and on the 1net site.) FYI, /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun Nov 17 20:20:16 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:20:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society... In-Reply-To: <20131109225442.44b1b129@quill> References: <20131109052420.452e5c38@quill> <20131109225442.44b1b129@quill> Message-ID: Dear Norbert, With reference only to this paragraph in your message "Because I asked about how Andrew's work is funded, I've been sent (by one of the authors) a copy of a research paper on "capacity building" funding where the initial BestBits meeting (the one prior to the Baku IGF) is described as having been part of a capacity building project funded in part by the US government." And Jeremy's response on 11th November: That's just false, so that paper needs to be corrected. i was puzzled, so I went back to check my pre-Baku email, where I found this message: Jeremy Malcolm jeremy at ciroap.org via lists.igcaucus.org 17/08/2012 to governance This is a "save the date" notice for a gathering on Internet governance and Internet rights in Baku, Azerbaijan on November 3-4 ahead of the global IGF, titled "Best Bits". This will be an advocacy-focused event designed for sharing knowledge and collaborating on tangible outputs. It arose from discussions of a diverse group of North and South based experts held at the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF. You can download a short document which gives more details about the motivation for the event, the programme, and the expected outputs from http://igf-online.net/bestbits.pdf. For more information, you are also invited to join the "Best Bits" mailing list at http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/bestbits. Specific details such as the venue will be confirmed later. The importance of this meeting for the IGC is that it is meant partly as a bridge between our IGF/WSIS world and the US tech policy world, leading to better informed, more effective, and more complementary and consistent advocacy outcomes - though there is no intention to subsume or supersede any existing work. The other purpose is to produce specific outputs, including the long-planned civil society statement of principles for the IGF, and a slightly different one to WCIT. If you plan to attend, please let me know off-list - this is just for planning purposes, as a formal registration form will come later. If you would require any assistance with travel expenses, a very limited fund may be available courtesy of Google to assist certain individuals with specific skillsets who will contribute to the meeting by way of moderating, presenting, helping to prepare briefing documents, or working on the zero-draft texts that are to be discussed and finalised at the meeting. Those seeking support must let me know strictly within 1 week, ie. by 24 August 2012 at the latest. -- *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumer* in which it appears that the funding was provided by Google. This seems to be something that needs to be clarified. Deirdre On 9 November 2013 17:54, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Deirdre Williams wrote: > > > I find this message to be very deeply disturbing for two reasons. > > > > The first is the specific mention “ a US government agency is among > > the funders”,. > > Well the first several times that I brought up the issue of the > importance of funding transparency in the context of how the BestBits > process is steered, I was speaking more generally. > > Because I asked about how Andrew's work is funded, I've been sent (by > one of the authors) a copy of a research paper on "capacity building" > funding where the initial BestBits meeting (the one prior to the Baku > IGF) is described as having been part of a capacity building project > funded in part by the US government. Even though I was there, I am not > able to judge the accuracy of that description. All I know is that > 1) nothing of the sort was disclosed to the participants, > 2) the content and outcome of that meeting turned out to be remarkably > well-aligned with the geostrategic interests of the US government, > 3) since then, BestBits has been institutionalized to some degree with > a steering committee, where with the exception of Jeremy, the > steering committee members haven't been responding to the requests > for funding transparency in any way that could possibly inspire me > with trust. > > At some point, when there is specific reason for being concerned but > clearly strong reluctance to publicly disclose the relevant > information, it becomes appropriate to bluntly ask specific, pointed > questions. > > This is not about a value judgment it is not about some kinds of > funding for civil society work being less ok than others. I hereby > promise to everyone that anyone who discloses receiving some of their > funding from US government sources, or other government sources, or > industry sources, will not because of that in any way lose my respect. > > But I definitely think that there is something that needs to be > addressed as a potential problem when --at a time when a significant > part of what is going on in Internet governance is about how much > surveillance power and other power is going to shift away from the US > government-- that same government is --as Sala's posting shows-- > seeking to have a central role in civil society "capacity building" at > least in some countries. > > > The second is the assumption that I am hearing in this message that > > the recipient of such funding is helpless to maintain their > > objectivity. (The fact that I hear this doesn't necessarily mean that > > you intended it) > > My relevant assumption or working hypothesis is: > > Human nature is such that when some someone's actual or potential > funding may depend on not understanding something, that in many > situations makes it very hard for the person to understand. > > I do not think that people are necessarily helpless in regard to this > risk of partial loss of objectivity. > > Specifically in the civil society context, I believe that it helps to > some extent already to have a strong policy of transparency in regard to > funding sources. > > In regard to the important issue about the objectivity of the outcomes > of group processes, I would suggest that key steps are to > > 1) ensure high diversity of funding sources among the participants in > the group, > > 2) to use deliberative processes that are designed to make the key > assumptions explicit and subject of conscious reflection, and > > 3) to have a culture in the coordinating group (or steering committee or > whatever it's called) that involves members of that group (which has > particular influence on the agenda and outcomes) recusing themselves > from decisions that could reasonably be seen as being related to > particular interests of a funding source. > > Furthermore, specifically in regard to risks related to funding of > civil society "capacity building" by actors with strong particular > interests, I think it is important to have good awareness of these two > potential scenarios that would IMO entail a collapse of the overall > trustworthiness of civil society when seen as a whole: > > a) Agenda setting processes being captured (in actual reality or even > just in plausible perception) so that those topics where the outcome > would be contrary to the funder's interests are not put on the agenda > in such a way that an effective outcome results. > > b) Discriminatory capacity building, where e.g. getting travel funding > is correlated to how well someone's positions are aligned to not > endangering the funder's particular interests. Or where people are told > that they can get travel funding provided they do not "attack" a > particular person. > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 17 20:22:31 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 06:52:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <14268b239e0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <14268cd3038.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Ah thanks. It might be worth combining efforts here but well.. with --srs (htc one x) On 18 November 2013 6:45:07 AM John Curran wrote: > On Nov 17, 2013, at 9:53 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > Nice list I must say. And where exactly will the recommendations from > this panel feed into? > > It appears to be intended as an input into the Brazil meeting; I have > heard that there will be an call for proposals for input to that meeting > (open to all & due sometime early next year) and this was a consideration > in the timing of organizing the high-level panel. > > (I am still trying to get hard confirmation of these details to share here > and on the 1net site.) > > FYI, > /John > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 17 20:23:26 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 06:53:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <14268cd3038.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <14268b239e0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <14268cd3038.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <14268ce0328.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Continuing.. Without knowing a lot more about this, it is way early to comment, or commit to supporting it. --srs (htc one x) On 18 November 2013 6:52:31 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Ah thanks. It might be worth combining efforts here but well.. with > --srs (htc one x) > > > On 18 November 2013 6:45:07 AM John Curran wrote: > > On Nov 17, 2013, at 9:53 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > > > > Nice list I must say. And where exactly will the recommendations from > this panel feed into? > > > > It appears to be intended as an input into the Brazil meeting; I have > > heard that there will be an call for proposals for input to that meeting > > (open to all & due sometime early next year) and this was a consideration > > in the timing of organizing the high-level panel. > > > > (I am still trying to get hard confirmation of these details to share > here and on the 1net site.) > > > > FYI, > > /John > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Nov 17 20:36:10 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:36:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees Message-ID: <3ys99ipevvk2gri3n5nh0ll4.1384738221887@email.android.com> Anri, you give more reasons for us to make sure that we recommend names committed to these changes. Eight IGFs have passed and there is an impressive resistance to significant change. Are we choosing our reps wisely? fraternal regards --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Anriette Esterhuysen Date: 17-11-2013 20:05 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees Dear c.a. The report of the working group on IGF improvements actually went a long way towards recognising where the IGF is not meeting its mandate, and it does make recommendations for the IGF to do this. It could have said more - we spent a lot of time evaluating the extent to which the IGF had met its mandate or not, but some of the participants in the group did not want to go into to much detail, in part because they did not want a more empowered IGF. Nevertheless, speaking as a MAG member for the past year and a half, I think that most people on the MAG at present do want the IGF to do more. That era where some of the influential people in the IGF did not want it to achieve anything or take any risks is actually over. Other people on the MAG can share their views. The bottleneck is capacity and leadership. Without political leadership, a special adviser, resources, and senior staff at secretariat level the IGF will not break through the barriers necessary for it to effectively do what paragraph 72 says it should. Can the MAG change this? I don't think so. I think what we need is for UN member states to make a resolution that goes to the UNGA on strenghtening IGF capacity, and for ALL stakeholder groups to write to the UN SG urging him to appoint the special advisor as soon as possible. We should ask that the appointment be made in a way that consults all stakeholders. I suspect that is not an option, but we could still ask. Anriette On 17/11/2013 22:42, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: I meant UNSG, of course. Sorry... ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" Date: 17-11-2013 18:34 (GMT-03:00) To: Ian Peter ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees I do hope the Nomcom selects people who have a clear perception that the IGF is not fulfilling its mandate as per the 12 items of para.72 of the Tunis Agenda and commit to a significant change in its actions and approach (please take a look at my WGEC report). *But* I am not sure how to insert this in the criteria. And an explicit comitment to this might mean rejection by the UNSA... fraternal regards --c.a. ps: I am not a candidate. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Ian Peter Date: 17-11-2013 17:28 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees   Just a quick note and update -   within 24 hours we will be posting on IGC list the selection criteria to be used by the Nomcom for this years MAG nominations.  Nominees or their nominators will be given an opportunity to provide statements to the MAG in support of their nomination providing background relevant to the nomination.   We will at the same time provide a list of nominations received to date, plus the opportunity for late nominations over the next couple of days. This will be short because of our very tight deadlines.   More to come within a day.     Ian Peter (non voting Nomcom chair) -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Nov 17 20:39:48 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:39:48 -0200 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT Message-ID: +++1 for Nnenna - with a pre-condition: make your powerful voice heard! :) []s fraternos --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Babatope Soremi Date: 17-11-2013 20:14 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,'Gbenga Sesan Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT +1 for Nnenna's MAG nomination, pls. On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:16 PM, 'Gbenga Sesan wrote: +1 for Nnenna MAG nomination. --- 'Gbenga Sesan @gbengasesan www.gbengasesan.com On Nov 17, 2013, at 7:13 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: My too. Nnenna would be an excellent MAG member. Anriette On 17/11/2013 18:00, Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote: I support Nnenna's nomination for the MAG 2013/11/17, Kabani : We proposed that those whom have served MAG before should not consider this time and let other members served the MAG. On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Dear All, This is to advise that these are the current nominations received for MAG Candidates that will go through the process of selection by a randomly selected NomCom. Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection  can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people.   1.   Asif Kabani   2.   Rudi Vansnick   3.   Sonigitu Ekpe   4.   Imran Ahmed Shah   5.   Fouad Bajwa   6.   Katim S Touray   7.   Stuart Hamilton Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting clarification -- Sent from iPad -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Babatope Soremi A destructive means can not bring about a constructive end.... TB Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of intelligent effort.  John Ruskin  -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Sun Nov 17 20:42:57 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:42:57 -0300 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <14268ce0328.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <14268b239e0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <14268cd3038.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <14268ce0328.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Nov 17, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Without knowing a lot more about this, it is way early to comment, or commit to supporting it. I don't know if one "supports" a high-level panel; all we know is that it is going to consider the subject and then produce an output. There does not appear to be much more to it (e.g. will the panel members seek input on their own, or collectively, or ?), but that could also be details still to be worked out. Lynn St. Amour provides some more context about it in her recent blog post - "This panel is one of many groups addressing Internet Governance issues and is not meant to take the place of those efforts, serve as a new institutional framework, or to produce solutions or agreements—it’s an opportunity to help evolve or look for new processes. The output from the panel is expected to serve as only one contribution to the multi-stakeholder high level meeting being planned in Brazil for late April/early May." As long as the output is considered in that context, I don't particularly see any harm from it, and who knows - it could actually produce insights that help. FYI, /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 17 20:43:28 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 07:13:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] NEW - English Version of Brazilian Marco Civil Bill In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <492EBDA8-32CF-42F1-88E2-1EDB253DBB6D@hserus.net> To be very honest both the data localization sections [which given the exigecies of routing, can mostly be on a best effort basis], as well as the parts on data retention (to keep in mind adequate protections against spam and hacking), would need some substantial technical input to determine the most feasible approach before they are signed into law. I would strongly suggest reaching out to the local ISP technical community - possibly through LACNOG meetings where security practitioners will be around - ASAP, to remove any ambiguities and inconsistencies in the wording here. --srs (iPad) > On 18-Nov-2013, at 0:56, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > Dear Anne, I am planning to do the translation myself, but right now I am in the Icann meeting with very little time for this. The original interview is actually larger, so my attempt will be to convert it to a full article. > > In the meantime, could you send me phrase/paragraph you had trouble with? > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > sent from a dumbphone > >> On 17/11/2013, at 10:59, Anne Jellema wrote: >> >> Thanks Carolina. Google Translate does a real hatchet job on this interview, and I'm struggling and failing to understand CA's remarks on the data localisation amendment. If anyone who reads Portuguese better than me, or who can decipher Google-ese better than me, could post a brief summary (even just a few lines), I'd be very grateful! >> many thanks >> Anne >> >> >>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> Regarding Eduardo's question, I suggest you take a look (with help of Google translate :-) ) at this very clarifying interview CA has given recently: >>> >>> http://www.nupef.org.br/?q=node/112 >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>>> Thanks a lot Carolina. This is extremely helpful to understand the domestic process in Brazil. >>>> >>>> I have a question to you and my fellow brazilian colleagues. You said in your email that the new version received great support from the Brazilian civil society. Does this support include the support of the new art. 11, 12 and 13? >>>> >>>> I would like to receive the reactions/comments from other people in the network. Maybe I am missing something but those articles includes provisions that form me, first, are not very realistic from an implementation perspective, and second, if this idea is supported in Brazil, I don´t know how we will oppose the same idea for other countries that could use the provisions to go against local civil society groups. >>>> >>>> I copied below the articles mentioned above: >>>> >>>> Art. 11. Any process of collection, storage, custody and treatment of records, personal data or communications by connection providers and Internet applications providers, in which at least one of these acts occurs in the national territory, shall respect Brazilian law, the rights to Privacy, and the confidentiality of personal data, of private communications and records. >>>> >>>> § 1 The provisions aforementioned apply to data collected in the national territory and the content of communications, in which at least one of the terminals is located in Brazil. >>>> >>>> § 2 The provisions aforementioned apply even if the activities are carried out by legal entity located abroad, provided that at least one member of the same economic group owns property/is established in Brazil. >>>> >>>> § 3 The connection providers and Internet applications provider shall provide, in the form of regulations, information that allow the verification regarding compliance with Brazilian legislation regarding the collection, custody, storage and processing of data, as well as how the provider respects the privacy and secrecy of communications. >>>> >>>> § 4 Decree shall regulate the procedure for finding violations of the provisions of this article. >>>> >>>> Article 12. The Executive Branch, through Decree, may force connection providers and Internet applications providers provided for in art. 11, who exercise their activities in an organized, professional and economic way, to install or use structures for storage, management and dissemination of data in the country, considering the size of the providers, its sales in Brazil and breadth of the service offering to the Brazilian public. >>>> >>>> Article 13. Without prejudice to other civil, criminal or administrative penalties, violations of the rules laid down in Articles 10, 11 and 12 shall be subject, as appropriate, the following sanctions, applied individually or cumulatively: >>>> >>>> I - warning, indicating the deadline for corrective action; >>>> >>>> II - a fine of up to ten percent of the gross revenues of the economic group in Brazil in its last financial year, excluding taxes; >>>> >>>> III - Temporary suspension of activities involving the acts specified in Clauses 11 and 12, or >>>> >>>> IV - the prohibition of the exercise of activities that involve the acts referred to in Articles 11 and 12. >>>> >>>> Single paragraph. In the case of a foreign company, its subsidiary, branch, office or establishment in the country will be jointly and severally liable for payment of the penalties aforementioned. >>>> >>>> I look forward to hearing from you. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> e >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Eduardo >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> *** sorry for cross-posting *** >>>>> >>>>> during the past few days I used some hours translating the new version of the Marco Civil made public last week. >>>>> >>>>> This version has receive great support of the Brazilian civil society and has also gather great (but not yet enough) support from legislators. >>>>> >>>>> Please, find it attached. The first column was the initial public text, the second one IS THE NEW OFFICIAL version and the third one its translation. The text in yellow are some of the core changes...however, they do not mirror what was deleted. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> C >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Carolina Rossini >>>>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>>>> Open Technology Institute >>>>> New America Foundation >>>>> // >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Carolina Rossini >>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>> Open Technology Institute >>> New America Foundation >>> // >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> Anne Jellema >> Chief Executive Officer >> Cape Town, RSA >> mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9652 >> tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 >> tel (US) +1 202 684 6885 >> Skype anne.jellema >> @afjellema >> >> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 20:47:20 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:47:20 -0600 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <14268b239e0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <14268cd3038.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <14268ce0328.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20131118014720.GA31895@hserus.net> OK thanks. So, the panel is a think tank, and an influential one - that much is evident. But to support and/or join forces with whatever views originate from the panel is a decision that'll probably get taken based on whatever input comes from the panel, and how open they are in engaging with other, similar groups in this space to coordinate their inputs. The press release did say that it is being expande to include more members, and that too might be ideal. thanks --srs John Curran [17/11/13 22:42 -0300]: >On Nov 17, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> Without knowing a lot more about this, it is way early to comment, or commit to supporting it. > >I don't know if one "supports" a high-level panel; all we know is that it >is going to consider the subject and then produce an output. There does >not appear to be much more to it (e.g. will the panel members seek input >on their own, or collectively, or ?), but that could also be details still >to be worked out. > >Lynn St. Amour provides some more context about it in her recent blog post - > > >"This panel is one of many groups addressing Internet Governance issues and is not meant to take the place of those efforts, serve as a new institutional framework, or to produce solutions or agreements—it’s an opportunity to help evolve or look for new processes. > >The output from the panel is expected to serve as only one contribution to the multi-stakeholder high level meeting being planned in Brazil for late April/early May." > >As long as the output is considered in that context, I don't particularly >see any harm from it, and who knows - it could actually produce insights >that help. > >FYI, >/John > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Nov 17 21:06:55 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:06:55 +0800 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> On 18/11/13 08:43, John Curran wrote: > A high-level panel has been organized to consider the issues surrounding global Internet cooperation - > > "The Panel plans to release a high-level report in early 2014 for public comment. The report will include principles for global Internet cooperation, proposed frameworks for such cooperation and a roadmap for future Internet governance challenges." > > So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil society representatives for the High Level Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation, which is what became of its 5th panel on Internet evolution. Previously Fadi had claimed that the fate of the 5th panel would be a decision for (what is now) the 1net dialogue, but evidently this was just more bluff. The civil society representatives that ICANN helpful chose on our behalf do not include the most expert names on Internet governance evolution. And meanwhile ISOC is "representing" civil society in other processes such as in the UNGA draft resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age. The technical community, supported by its hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, is eating broader civil society alive. We are being completely left behind while we are dithering over questions about whether to send the letter nominating our representatives to the Brazil meeting, and whether our mailing list should be open or closed. It is absolutely imperative now that we put internal process issues on hold, and focus on urgent substantive issues. Will post something more practical about all this to the new (though now already mis-named) "summit" list. -- *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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 17 21:14:12 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 07:44:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> References: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <1C0F749C-7F2A-4094-973E-0EB9072DF19F@hserus.net> Keeping in mind that I do have reservations about this group - simply because I don't know as much about it as yet .. You say "the people selected don't include the most important names on internet governance evolution" So - specific suggestions please. Who do you think should not be there? And who should be there? Or is this more a "why was I not selected to this panel" thing? --srs (iPad) > On 18-Nov-2013, at 7:36, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 18/11/13 08:43, John Curran wrote: >> A high-level panel has been organized to consider the issues surrounding global Internet cooperation - >> >> "The Panel plans to release a high-level report in early 2014 for public comment. The report will include principles for global Internet cooperation, proposed frameworks for such cooperation and a roadmap for future Internet governance challenges." >> >> > > So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil society representatives for the High Level Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation, which is what became of its 5th panel on Internet evolution. Previously Fadi had claimed that the fate of the 5th panel would be a decision for (what is now) the 1net dialogue, but evidently this was just more bluff. > > The civil society representatives that ICANN helpful chose on our behalf do not include the most expert names on Internet governance evolution. And meanwhile ISOC is "representing" civil society in other processes such as in the UNGA draft resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age. The technical community, supported by its hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, is eating broader civil society alive. > > We are being completely left behind while we are dithering over questions about whether to send the letter nominating our representatives to the Brazil meeting, and whether our mailing list should be open or closed. It is absolutely imperative now that we put internal process issues on hold, and focus on urgent substantive issues. > > Will post something more practical about all this to the new (though now already mis-named) "summit" list. > > > -- > 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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 21:25:55 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:25:55 +0800 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <1C0F749C-7F2A-4094-973E-0EB9072DF19F@hserus.net> References: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> <1C0F749C-7F2A-4094-973E-0EB9072DF19F@hserus.net> Message-ID: <52897AB3.6040408@ciroap.org> On 18/11/13 10:14, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Keeping in mind that I do have reservations about this group - simply > because I don't know as much about it as yet .. > > You say "the people selected don't include the most important names on > internet governance evolution" > > So - specific suggestions please. Who do you think should not be > there? And who should be there? Or is this more a "why was I not > selected to this panel" thing? I'm not going to pick favourites, but compare to the list of luminaries whom we had on the WGIG: http://www.wgig.org/members.html Instead we have freedom of expression expert Frank la Rue (who is great, but hasn't been much involved in this aspect of Internet governance), Mitchell Baker who has been even less involved, and rock star Jimmy Wales. And from amongst the other stakeholder groups we have Robert "Internet freedom's foes" McDowell, plus Fadi and a bunch of his mates like Lynn St Amour and Vint Cerf. Trying to fix this panel would be a waste of time, just like trying to fix 1net dialogue will be. We are being led a merry chase. -- *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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 17 21:33:23 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:03:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52897AB3.6040408@ciroap.org> References: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> <1C0F749C-7F2A-4094-973E-0EB9072DF19F@hserus.net> <52897AB3.6040408@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Let us say it is a set of people with a rather different world view. I don't see any reason to doubt their qualifications though. Jimmy Wales possibly because he's not a "regular" in these circles but then again, a lot of things which get consensus among the usual suspects tend to break down when exposed to a larger audience, so that is not necessarily bad. Still - the release does say they plan to expand membership. So do feel free to put names forward and see what works. --srs (iPad) > On 18-Nov-2013, at 7:55, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 18/11/13 10:14, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Keeping in mind that I do have reservations about this group - simply because I don't know as much about it as yet .. >> >> You say "the people selected don't include the most important names on internet governance evolution" >> >> So - specific suggestions please. Who do you think should not be there? And who should be there? Or is this more a "why was I not selected to this panel" thing? > > I'm not going to pick favourites, but compare to the list of luminaries whom we had on the WGIG: > > http://www.wgig.org/members.html > > Instead we have freedom of expression expert Frank la Rue (who is great, but hasn't been much involved in this aspect of Internet governance), Mitchell Baker who has been even less involved, and rock star Jimmy Wales. > > And from amongst the other stakeholder groups we have Robert "Internet freedom's foes" McDowell, plus Fadi and a bunch of his mates like Lynn St Amour and Vint Cerf. > > Trying to fix this panel would be a waste of time, just like trying to fix 1net dialogue will be. We are being led a merry chase. > > -- > 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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Nov 17 21:41:39 2013 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:41:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52897AB3.6040408@ciroap.org> References: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> <1C0F749C-7F2A-4094-973E-0EB9072DF19F@hserus.net> <52897AB3.6040408@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Nov 17, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Trying to fix this panel would be a waste of time, just like trying > to fix 1net dialogue will be. We are being led a merry chase. Amen. As you said initially, time to get on with some serious work. 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Nov 17 21:46:55 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 03:46:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Nov 17 21:51:52 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 03:51:52 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> References: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Nov 17 23:12:24 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:12:24 +1100 Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> Hi Sala, a matter of clarification please. Are you suggesting that George be a point of liaison within the technical community for civil society, or that George be a civil society representative liaising with the technical community? I am all in favour of the former, and admire George’s work, but I doubt whether George would be entirely comfortable with the latter role and even if he was I doubt that would be acceptable to many on this list. Ian Peter From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:20 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: George Sadowsky Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons Dear IGC, As you can imagine, since Bali and in light of the “multistakeholder” event that will be hosted by the Brazil on the future on Internet Governance called: "Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future on Internet Governance," it becomes inherently critical that we start preparing to shape the Agenda. Many thanks to Carlos and Hartmut for keeping us informed of what is happening within Brazil and for taking the time to translate from Portuguese to English when the need demands. Unfortunately, there were no live transcripts although transcripts will be provided unlike the live stream available to the GAC community (tongue in cheek). To watch the vide of Fadi speaking: http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157637762195684 ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadi spoke about the manner in which ICANN is going to engage in what I thought was a very mature response symbolic of the desire to engage with communities. As you can imagine in the lead up to the preparations for 2014 we as global civil society need to consolidate to prepare. There have been discussions going on offlist amongst the various facilitators of some of the core civil society groups about how this is to take place where it has centered on the possibilities of a joint framework for engagement of civil society including Multistakeholder selection processes for some of the key positions. There was suggestion to experiment first with the combined NomCom for the MAG and I highlighted that this could be difficult in light of the pressing deadlines. There may be room however for joint endorsements but I will leave this to the NomCom Chair. At this point, I do not want to burden our NomCom as they are working against a very narrow and tight deadline. Whilst we are waiting for the other groups to comment on coordinated and shared framework for engagement, I would like to propose the following to the IGC. Given that we do not have time nor the resources, it has been by way of an ad hoc nature common for people who are involved in foras or diverse communities to provide feedback on what is happening randomly. This to a large extent happens but my sense is that we need to be better coordinated and have different people watch the different spaces they are in and liaise back with the IGC. I suggested that this could be done with and through combined civil society but I think we need to pick up the pace and start anyway whilst waiting. To this extent, I would propose that in the spirit of enhanced cooperation that we use our own people within civil society who happen to wear multiple hats to act as liaisons, even if temporary at this point until such time where we can coordinate more permanent representation. I feel that the IGC should have liaisons in the following circles: · Technical Community · Business Community · Governments The liaisons role would be to be a bridge into these communities to channel developments of what is happening within these communities that are of relevance to civil society and also from time to time raise the issues of civil society or broker and facilitate the process through which these views can be heard. If there are people who feel they can function in these roles, we need volunteers. This is to ensure that we know what is happening at all times. The IGC has two options, we can utilize a formal process and invite calls for nominations and have a NomCom make the selection. On another note, we can maintain the informal ad hoc liaison process that is currently in place. My personal preference is for the latter to allow for volunteers who are consistent and command the respect of the diverse communities. Given the current deadlines and politics surrounding the 2014 Meeting in Brazil, I propose that we have George Sadowski to act as liaison for us to the technical community. I am of the view that we can have at least two to three liaisons as the Technical Community is diverse and spread out between the ETSI, W3C, ITU-T, IETF, ICANN, IAB, RIR etc. For now the liaison function can be limited to the developments of the Rio engagement with room to evolve into identifying issues affecting global public interest that civil society might want to monitor in a consistent and cohesive manner. Whilst George is also a member of the ICANN Board, I am not asking him as an ICANN Board member but as a member of the IGC. If there are those that wish to join George in this role, there is nothing stopping a list of volunteers from being part of a team that condenses the issues in diverse stratas and feeds it back into the IGC in a consolidated manner. As we engage in coming to the table to set the Agenda, we need to do so intelligently and cohesively and in a coordinated manner. This was one of the things raised in the meeting in Bali- In the future as the IGC evolves, there is space to develop a working group to focus on technical and policy stratas that we may wish to organize our advocacies in. For a long while, advocacy has been happening via individuals or groups that have pet topics and issues. Kind Regards, Sala (In my personal capacity) George Sadowski Profile and Biography GEORGE SADOWSKY: BIOGRAPHY George Sadowsky is currently a member of the Board of Directors of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and a consultant to, inter alia, the World Wide Web Foundation and NATO. He received an A.B. degree with honors in Mathematics from Harvard College and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Economics from Yale University. After spending 1958-1962 as an applied mathematician and programmer, his career concentrated on applying computers to economic and social policy, leading academic computing and networking organizations, and making information and communication technologies (ICTs) useful throughout the world. In 1963-64 he introduced the use of microsimulation for tax analysis purposes in the U.S. Treasury Department. During 1966-1970 he founded and directed the Computer Center at the Brookings Institution in Washington; from 1970-73 he did economic research at the Urban Institute leading to his Ph.D, dissertation on the subject of micro-analytic simulation of the household sector. During 1973-86 at the United Nations, he supported the transfer of information technology to developing countries. He has done work in more than 50 developing countries and continues to do so. Among other things, he introduced the use of microcomputers for census data processing in Africa in 1979, and he worked in China during 1982-1986 supporting the computing activities of their 1982 Census of Population and Housing. >From 1986 to 2001, he directed academic computing and networking activities, first at Northwestern University and then at New York University. He has been a consultant to the U.S. Treasury Department, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, UNDP, the Swiss Government, and a number of foundations. He was a Board member of AppliedTheory Corporation and was a Trustee of the Corporation for Research and Educational Networking (CREN) and the New York State Educational and Research Network (NYSERNet). He was actively involved in World Bank activities during 1996-2002 as a member and Coordinator of the Technical Advisory Panel for the infoDev program, as well as in UNDP and USAID activities. In 1994, he and Larry Landweber formulated USAID's Leland Initiative for providing initial Internet connectivity for 20 African countries. He was a member of the Internet Society Board of Trustees during 1996-1999 and 2000-2004 and served as Vice President for Conferences (1996-1998) and Vice- President for Education (1998-2001). He headed a group of ISOC volunteers who defined and conducted the ISOC Developing Country Network Training Workshops during 1993 -2001. More recently, he was the Executive Director of the Global Internet Policy Initiative (GIPI) from 2001-2006, which had active ongoing Internet policy reform projects in 17 countries. He also served as Senior Technical Adviser within USAID's dot-GOV program for the Internews Consortium, providing ICT policy assistance to the developing world. He has served as an expert witness for litigation in the United Kingdom and the United States. He was a special adviser to Nitin Desai, the Chair of the UN Secretary-General's Internet Governance Forum as well as to the Chair of UN G at ID. He has served as a member of the PIR (Public Internet Registry) Advisory Board, and he is currently a member of the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) Board of Directors He has written and lectured extensively on Please refer to his web site, http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ as well as the GIPI web site, http:// www.internetpolicy.net, for additional information. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 17 23:40:29 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:40:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> References: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Jeremy, On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 18/11/13 08:43, John Curran wrote: > > A high-level panel has been organized to consider the issues surrounding > global Internet cooperation - > > "The Panel plans to release a high-level report in early 2014 for public > comment. The report will include principles for global Internet cooperation, > proposed frameworks for such cooperation and a roadmap for future Internet > governance challenges." > > > > > So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil society > representatives Are they "representatives"? for the High Level Panel on the Future of Global Internet > Cooperation, which is what became of its 5th panel They also chose the folks on the other 4 Panels, so why would you think this one would be any different? on Internet evolution. > Previously Fadi had claimed that the fate of the 5th panel would be a > decision for (what is now) the 1net dialogue, but evidently this was just > more bluff. http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-17nov13-en.htm may be instructive. > > The civil society representatives that ICANN helpful chose on our behalf do > not include the most expert names on Internet governance evolution. I find that many "experts" are not that expert at all. And > meanwhile ISOC is "representing" civil society in other processes such as in > the UNGA draft resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age. Good for them, as you know, I see them as CS. The > technical community, supported by its hundreds of millions of dollars in > revenue, is eating broader civil society alive. > nonsense. > We are being completely left behind while we are dithering over questions > about whether to send the letter nominating our representatives to the > Brazil meeting, and whether our mailing list should be open or closed. It > is absolutely imperative now that we put internal process issues on hold, > and focus on urgent substantive issues. If "we" are being "left behind" I submit it is because we have focused on Geneva style IG for far too long. -- 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 Sun Nov 17 23:50:57 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:50:57 -0600 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20131118045057.GA10909@hserus.net> As mctim says, a bad case of sour grapes. McTim [17/11/13 23:40 -0500]: >Jeremy, > >On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 18/11/13 08:43, John Curran wrote: >> >> A high-level panel has been organized to consider the issues surrounding >> global Internet cooperation - >> >> "The Panel plans to release a high-level report in early 2014 for public >> comment. The report will include principles for global Internet cooperation, >> proposed frameworks for such cooperation and a roadmap for future Internet >> governance challenges." >> >> >> >> >> So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil society >> representatives > >Are they "representatives"? > >for the High Level Panel on the Future of Global Internet >> Cooperation, which is what became of its 5th panel > >They also chose the folks on the other 4 Panels, so why would you >think this one would be any different? > > > > on Internet evolution. >> Previously Fadi had claimed that the fate of the 5th panel would be a >> decision for (what is now) the 1net dialogue, but evidently this was just >> more bluff. > >http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-17nov13-en.htm > may be instructive. > > >> >> The civil society representatives that ICANN helpful chose on our behalf do >> not include the most expert names on Internet governance evolution. > >I find that many "experts" are not that expert at all. > > And >> meanwhile ISOC is "representing" civil society in other processes such as in >> the UNGA draft resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age. > >Good for them, as you know, I see them as CS. > > The >> technical community, supported by its hundreds of millions of dollars in >> revenue, is eating broader civil society alive. >> > >nonsense. > > >> We are being completely left behind while we are dithering over questions >> about whether to send the letter nominating our representatives to the >> Brazil meeting, and whether our mailing list should be open or closed. It >> is absolutely imperative now that we put internal process issues on hold, >> and focus on urgent substantive issues. > >If "we" are being "left behind" I submit it is because we have focused >on Geneva style IG for far too long. > >-- >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 anriette at apc.org Mon Nov 18 00:22:34 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 07:22:34 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> References: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5289A41A.7030801@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Not one person from civil society who has been active in IGF since the WSIS process. Frankly, I am not at all surprised, but it is still extremely disappointing and just hope this does not signal what we can expect from the Brazil meeting. Moreover, developing country representation is extremely poor. Agree with Jeremy that we should act. Anriette On 18/11/2013 04:06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 18/11/13 08:43, John Curran wrote: >> A high-level panel has been organized to consider the issues surrounding global Internet cooperation - >> >> "The Panel plans to release a high-level report in early 2014 for public comment. The report will include principles for global Internet cooperation, proposed frameworks for such cooperation and a roadmap for future Internet governance challenges." >> >> > > So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil society representatives for the High Level Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation, which is what became of its 5th panel on Internet evolution. Previously Fadi had claimed that the fate of the 5th panel would be a decision for (what is now) the 1net dialogue, but evidently this was just more bluff. > > The civil society representatives that ICANN helpful chose on our behalf do not include the most expert names on Internet governance evolution. And meanwhile ISOC is "representing" civil society in other processes such as in the UNGA draft resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age. The technical community, supported by its hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, is eating broader civil society alive. > > We are being completely left behind while we are dithering over questions about whether to send the letter nominating our representatives to the Brazil meeting, and whether our mailing list should be open or closed. It is absolutely imperative now that we put internal process issues on hold, and focus on urgent substantive issues. > > Will post something more practical about all this to the new (though now already mis-named) "summit" list. > > > -- > > *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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > - -- - ------------------------------------------------------ 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSiaQZAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewvJsH/2UN20/QDncUSO3Ksuzz7RbU 9AxjK13KM0nxy+jmfJnzMQ1Vg9rpv3N3wN7DiLqkw4+V2PZl0qZ69tgIlpoCO2xG wgLJ1vau7yADIDNXLGSucmFUw3+qcIW6tHxWAAuCx/6VYrJkyLUpab6E/JDS0u2k +pQgkHTwbrpQCUCRWHhzRGIs3G17sMZF8rH7UNaKXk6Cw7yyCkm1imRMTPYrS4Fh Vr1U/i49mEx+cV9ejhbMU/aLY/8VAOBzljt3j5RccwDEF0NmDlLkdPlIfRNSjX+H 8Ye7m3rJgzcc+v4ZnmpGHVPUl7/KVwURNgSV5pMOg5aEi29J4UuDl30Fct5Vz9s= =ViIp -----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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Nov 18 00:32:42 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 03:32:42 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <5289A41A.7030801@apc.org> References: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> <5289A41A.7030801@apc.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Not one person from civil society who has been active in IGF since the > WSIS process. > > Frankly, I am not at all surprised, but it is still extremely > disappointing and just hope this does not signal what we can expect from > the Brazil meeting. > > Moreover, developing country representation is extremely poor. > > Agree with Jeremy that we should act. > > Anriette > > > Good Morning, > > Apologies for the delayed response, it has been an eventful day and am > only just getting a chance to respond now (2:13am). I would like to clarify > that I am equally surprised (shocked) with the Press Release and the > discussions that have ensued, particularly the perception that it creates > contrary to a bottom up process of organising itself. Nevertheless, I will > add that *it is more clearly than ever *before that global civil society > needs to be coordinated in its engagement in the issues. > > The dangers are that there are groups that can feel marginalised but I > would offer that we do not let the press release nor the panel affect our > judgment in terms of how we engage because we know that the absence of > global voices means the lack of legitimacy and possibly good faith. > However, having said this, it would seem apparent that there is room for > people to come to the table but we really should come to the table as > equals and not because someone else is driving the agenda. > > I suggest that we do not get distracted by the Panel and let them develop > their paper but we as civil society need to consolidate and consult our > respective constituencies and prepare the relevant papers for submissions > before the deadline. ICANN has no legitimacy to select civil society > representatives nor any of the I * organisations. In the meeting in Bali, > there was no representation by the I* that they would select the civil > society. On the contrary, I recall that civil society was told that it > would nominate its own people to the steering committee if there ever was > one. There are many issues I would like clarified starting with the > following: > > 1)Whether the High Level Panel is proposing to be the Steering Committee? > If there are other questions people feel should be put to the High Level > Panel, I am all ears. > > > For global civil society, we should be calm and prepare our background > papers and submissions either in collaboration with the Panel or > independent of the Panel. The very fact that there are things happening > without knowing about it adds more legitimacy as to why we should have > liaisons in different circles so as to provide feedback into the community. > In the meantime be good to have your thoughts on how we should proceed- > Sala > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Nov 18 00:36:22 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 02:36:22 -0300 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <87323243-9564-46F3-BC1B-7B08CFCFE819@istaff.org> On Nov 18, 2013, at 1:40 AM, McTim wrote: On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil society >> representatives > > Are they "representatives"? I don't believe that any of them are there in anything other than their individual capacity. I certainly don't consider them a priori to be representative of my views, but I will welcome their report and hope to find it informative in some manner. Note - there's nothing to prevent another group from forming a "Higher- Level Panel on the Future of Internet Governance" (or a "Lower-level Panel" or "Panel of the True Experts on Internet Governance"), and then producing their own report for input to the Brazil meeting. I thought that the announcement of this particular panel may be of some interest to the CS community and hence my email. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone; no panel was consulted in their preparation. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 00:39:38 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 07:39:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees In-Reply-To: <3ys99ipevvk2gri3n5nh0ll4.1384738221887@email.android.com> References: <3ys99ipevvk2gri3n5nh0ll4.1384738221887@email.android.com> Message-ID: <5289A81A.1060608@apc.org> Dear c.a. Speaking as a MAG member here.. I think not all of us on the MAG do speak loudly enough. This places a burden on those of us who do speak loudly, and who are heard. In the last rotation of the MAG some of the more vocal and active and critical MAG members were removed. The Nomcom should not just think of adding new names, they should, as you say, add names of people who will be taken seriously in the MAG and who are willing to take risks, but also who are able to be strategic. And I think it is also important to keep some of us who are on the MAG who have managed to have some influence - e.g. in terms of getting focus on issues such as human rights and surveillance. and who have conveyed concerns from broader civil society to the MAG and asked questions in MAG meetings. BUT - the structural issue remains. The MAG does not have authority over anything other than the organising of the event. Even the strongest MAG cannot fix that. We need capacity at the secretariat and institutional level. Anriette On 18/11/2013 03:36, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Anri, you give more reasons for us to make sure that we recommend > names committed to these changes. > > Eight IGFs have passed and there is an impressive resistance to > significant change. Are we choosing our reps wisely? > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Anriette Esterhuysen > Date: 17-11-2013 20:05 (GMT-03:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees > > > Dear c.a. > > The report of the working group on IGF improvements actually went a > long way towards recognising where the IGF is not meeting its mandate, > and it does make recommendations for the IGF to do this. > > It could have said more - we spent a lot of time evaluating the extent > to which the IGF had met its mandate or not, but some of the > participants in the group did not want to go into to much detail, in > part because they did not want a more empowered IGF. > > Nevertheless, speaking as a MAG member for the past year and a half, I > think that most people on the MAG at present do want the IGF to do more. > > That era where some of the influential people in the IGF did not want > it to achieve anything or take any risks is actually over. Other > people on the MAG can share their views. > > The bottleneck is capacity and leadership. > > Without political leadership, a special adviser, resources, and senior > staff at secretariat level the IGF will not break through the barriers > necessary for it to effectively do what paragraph 72 says it should. > > Can the MAG change this? I don't think so. I think what we need is for > UN member states to make a resolution that goes to the UNGA on > strenghtening IGF capacity, and for ALL stakeholder groups to write to > the UN SG urging him to appoint the special advisor as soon as possible. > > We should ask that the appointment be made in a way that consults all > stakeholders. I suspect that is not an option, but we could still ask. > > Anriette > > > On 17/11/2013 22:42, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> I meant UNSG, of course. Sorry... >> >> >> >> >> ------------ >> C. A. Afonso >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" >> Date: 17-11-2013 18:34 (GMT-03:00) >> To: Ian Peter ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees >> >> >> I do hope the Nomcom selects people who have a clear perception that >> the IGF is not fulfilling its mandate as per the 12 items of para.72 >> of the Tunis Agenda and commit to a significant change in its actions >> and approach (please take a look at my WGEC report). >> >> *But* I am not sure how to insert this in the criteria. And an >> explicit comitment to this might mean rejection by the UNSA... >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> ps: I am not a candidate. >> >> >> ------------ >> C. A. Afonso >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Ian Peter >> Date: 17-11-2013 17:28 (GMT-03:00) >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees >> >> >> >> Just a quick note and update - >> >> within 24 hours we will be posting on IGC list the selection criteria >> to be used by the Nomcom for this years MAG nominations. Nominees or >> their nominators will be given an opportunity to provide statements >> to the MAG in support of their nomination providing background >> relevant to the nomination. >> >> We will at the same time provide a list of nominations received to >> date, plus the opportunity for late nominations over the next couple >> of days. This will be short because of our very tight deadlines. >> >> More to come within a day. >> >> >> Ian Peter >> (non voting Nomcom chair) > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Nov 18 01:03:45 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 03:03:45 -0300 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <87323243-9564-46F3-BC1B-7B08CFCFE819@istaff.org> References: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> <87323243-9564-46F3-BC1B-7B08CFCFE819@istaff.org> Message-ID: Dear All, Some related links: http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/11/global-panel-address-future-internet-governance http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131117_high_level_panel_formed_on_the_future_of_internet_governance/ Sala Sent from my iPad > On Nov 18, 2013, at 2:36 AM, John Curran wrote: > > On Nov 18, 2013, at 1:40 AM, McTim wrote: > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>> So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil society >>> representatives >> >> Are they "representatives"? > > I don't believe that any of them are there in anything other than their > individual capacity. I certainly don't consider them a priori to be > representative of my views, but I will welcome their report and hope > to find it informative in some manner. > > Note - there's nothing to prevent another group from forming a "Higher- > Level Panel on the Future of Internet Governance" (or a "Lower-level > Panel" or "Panel of the True Experts on Internet Governance"), and > then producing their own report for input to the Brazil meeting. I > thought that the announcement of this particular panel may be of some > interest to the CS community and hence my email. > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone; no panel was consulted in their preparation. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 anja at internetdemocracy.in Mon Nov 18 03:22:08 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:52:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC Message-ID: Dear all, As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India made to the WGEC (see below this message and here: http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/) Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder models for Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government again tabled a proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be established under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP. Comments most welcome. Best, Anja Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take over the governance of the Internet? by Anja Kovacs *Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation give the strong impression that this is indeed the case. * In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC), which met for the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government recommended the following: The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have been revived. Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose dominance needs to be established at the expense of other stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other stakeholders will only be given an advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially where the role of civil society is concerned - are outmoded is something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect its proposal. Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil society representative. The latter took with this a position quite radically different from other Indian members of civil society active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in this field, who believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way forward. Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there might at times be space for multilateralism within this multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new treaty, then from that point onwards, governments would take over as negotiating treaties is their job. However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of government dominance in the policy process, irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it also leaves the Internet policy making process much more vulnerable to the vagaries of global geopolitics. The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also for developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without their flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To think that principles that should govern the work of these bodies can be formulated or effectively applied without a central involvement of all stakeholders already involved in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be said, conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed. The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis Agenda. India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that would privilege governments in the making of international Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been established by the government precisely for such purposes in August of this year. For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and his own commitment to this model. -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 18 03:45:11 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 02:45:11 -0600 Subject: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131118084511.GA25289@hserus.net> No prizes for guessing who the indian civ soc representative is, of course However the indian govt is like several others - with the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, and it may need a further round of lobbying before things settle down. Moreover - there are elections coming in mid 2014 and it is by no means certain that the current government will remain in power. The party poised to win is a religious right wing entity, but has not been in power for all that long a time over the past decades, so its foreign policy and stance on the CIRP is so far an unknown quantity. Anja Kovacs [18/11/13 13:52 +0530]: >Dear all, > >As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, I >wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India made to >the WGEC (see below this message and here: >http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/) > >Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal >seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and >Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly vocal about >his support for multistakeholder models for Internet governance. However, >during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government >again tabled a proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be >established under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP. > >Comments most welcome. > >Best, >Anja > > Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take over the >governance of the Internet? by Anja >Kovacs > >*Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation give >the strong impression that this is indeed the case. * > >In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >(WGEC), >which met for the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government >recommended the following: > >The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body for >formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The proposed >body should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and >international organisations in advisory capacity within their respective >roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also >develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated >with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. > >Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within the >field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s >earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies >within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have been revived. > >Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is >problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse >governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose >dominance needs to be established at the expense of other stakeholders. >Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other stakeholders will only >be given an advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only >be allowed to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these >definitions - especially where the role of civil society is concerned - are >outmoded is something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s >WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of >the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect its >proposal. > >Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only came >from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil society >representative. The latter took with this a position quite radically >different from other Indian members of civil society active in Internet >governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in this field, who >believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way >forward. > >Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there >might at times be space for multilateralism within this multistakeholder >model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the conclusion >that the best way forward to protect the right to privacy of all people in >the Internet age is a new treaty, then from that point onwards, governments >would take over as negotiating treaties is their job. > >However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones currently >and previously made by the Indian government is that in a multistakeholder >model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, including on the modalities, >is a prerequisite for any solution to go forward. The India proposals, in >contrast, presume the necessity of government dominance in the policy >process, irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement >only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other >stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it also >leaves the Internet policy making process much more vulnerable to the >vagaries of global geopolitics. > >The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also for >developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues >associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet >resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the >coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies >overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without their >flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To think that >principles that should govern the work of these bodies can be formulated or >effectively applied without a central involvement of all stakeholders >already involved in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be >said, conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed. > >The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on how to >fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis >Agenda. > >India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that >would privilege governments in the making of international Internet-related >public policy was made without any domestic consultation, even if a >Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been established by the government >precisely for such purposes in August of this year. > >For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a surprise - >even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information >Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year (and as recently as >17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism for effective Internet >policy making, and his own commitment to this model. > > > >-- >Dr. Anja Kovacs >The Internet Democracy Project > >+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >www.internetdemocracy.in >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Nov 18 04:44:04 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:44:04 +1100 Subject: [governance] MAG Nomcom Update - Criteria for Selection and Call for Candidate Information Message-ID: Hi everyone, The Nomcom for this years MAG selections is now underway on a very tight timeframe to select a slate of candidates. To date, we have the following nominees. If your name has been left out inadvertently, please let us know.To make sure that all prospective candidates have a chance to nominate, we will be extending the deadline for nominations until midnight UTC, Thursday November 21 1. Asif Kabani 2. Rudi Vansnick 3. Sonigitu Ekpe 4. Imran Ahmed Shah 5. Fouad Bajwa 6. Katim S Touray 7. Stuart Hamilton 8. Mawaki Chango 9. Nnenna Nwakanma 10. Mishi Choudary Please note that this is a list if of new candidates for MAG. The Nomcom is still determining how and if it will address questions of current membership and rotation and will advise in the near future. We have also determined our selection criteria as follows (circulated for the advice of IGC members and candidates) 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the IGC 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote participation 4. Knowledge of the UN system 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives held by civil society. 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute constructively to MAG deliberations 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including the IGC on issues and progress We will also be taking into account the need for gender and geographic balance. All candidates (or their nominators) are invited to contact us at nomcom-mag-2014 at lists.igcaucus.org; giving information to support their nomination, and addressing the selection criteria. As you may not be known to all members of the Nomcom, we encourage all candidates to submit information in support of their nomination. This information must be received by the deadline for nominations, i.e. midnight UTC, Thursday November 21. Nomcom members are: Kerry Brown Jefsey Morfin Deirdre Williams David Cake Shaila Mistry Ian Peter (non voting Chair) nomcom-mag-2014 at lists.igcaucus.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 kichango at gmail.com Mon Nov 18 05:02:38 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:02:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> <87323243-9564-46F3-BC1B-7B08CFCFE819@istaff.org> Message-ID: +1 to J. Curran latest post here. ICANN has no legitimacy to choose CS members ("representatives") to a group they have decided to form? I don't get that. ICANN includes CS members, doesn't it? What else is the ALAC crowd if not CS? And we've seen non-commercial stakeholder group members making it from the GNSO council to the Board, do they cease then being CS? I think we need to stop that kind of complaining! What makes us more legitimately CS than others? Just because we talk IG all days and all day long? It's like we are now assuming that CS means professional CS, those making their living in or with CS organizations, whereas the peasant who is not aware of your existence is just as CS as you, just like any other citizen who may be aware of it but doesn't engage with you or in this circle. Now, ICANN perfectly has the right to bypass IGC+BB and choose CS from wherever to be part of a group they initiate, whether from inside its community or from outside of it (including the peasant, if they so desire.) So please stop thinking that IGC and BB are the only path to "legitimate" and "global" CS representation (or rather, inclusion) when it comes to Internet policy. ICANN decided to form the strategic panels, we didn't. They had their goals when they made that decision. So if this "high-level" group just announced now stands in for the 5th panels planned, why should we be surprised they decide unilaterally (after calling for an unrestricted show of interest to be a member, mind you) on the membership, as has been pointed out? If we had been producing some substantive outputs about evolving IG etc., then someone would be paying attention and it would have been understandably troubling for us to see that none of our effort is being taking into account. ICANN or any other structure which has the autonomy to act could include individuals who happen to be in these groups (IGC and BB) but I submit that would be because those individuals may have done some remarkable and relevant job somewhere (working groups, task forces, etc.), certainly not just because of their membership here. CS members broadly speaking are not that scarce to find outside here, you know, and we don't represent as much as we think we do. As a reminder, following is what I wrote in connection to this more than a month ago in our discussion following the announcement of the "summit" then. On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: Anja has a point... and so does Parminder. We wouldn't want this initiative to set in as one of two leaders of two camps, with CS being only reactive (as often) after the details of the initiative are defined, or even after that narrative about the initiative is widely publicized. I have to say I'm a little surprised, for all the energy and time we have spent debating ourselves and against each others over the last too many months, and too many other months before that, and again before, etc. we do not have at this point a compiled list of critical questions, items, issues we think are priorities that need to be addressed as part of international policy for the global internet governance. Ideally, the existence of such list would have helped address the two perspectives: Put international CS on the map within a couple of days after the news emerged and yet in a way that is even more substantive than the initiative itself in its initial form. Imagine that! Maybe those high-level leaders and their institutions would now be reacting to CS in the process of moving their agenda forward on this. And I shall add that exactly was the challenge put before us by the Indian Minister we met in Baku. To paraphrase, he basically said and asked: You (CS) know as well as we (Govt.) do that these issues are complex, and there is no simple, one-sided solution. As the challenges of the internet continue to manifest themselves, governments will always try to do what they do best (at least from the standpoint of states), the best way they know. But in the meantime what are you CS proposing? How can you help us do what needs to be done without unwanted collateral damages (wrt the rights of honest people, etc.)? (Or something along those lines.) I know there are individuals among us who have been doing substantive work, including research. But as a whole, we CS enjoy chatters. We always seem to want to have a place at the table before thinking things through. And we put our small money where our mouth is, that is, in chatters. And our energy in contentious useless debates. ... Best, Mawaki On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Some related links: > > > http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/11/global-panel-address-future-internet-governance > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131117_high_level_panel_formed_on_the_future_of_internet_governance/ > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Nov 18, 2013, at 2:36 AM, John Curran wrote: > > > > On Nov 18, 2013, at 1:40 AM, McTim wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > >>> > >>> So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil > society > >>> representatives > >> > >> Are they "representatives"? > > > > I don't believe that any of them are there in anything other than their > > individual capacity. I certainly don't consider them a priori to be > > representative of my views, but I will welcome their report and hope > > to find it informative in some manner. > > > > Note - there's nothing to prevent another group from forming a "Higher- > > Level Panel on the Future of Internet Governance" (or a "Lower-level > > Panel" or "Panel of the True Experts on Internet Governance"), and > > then producing their own report for input to the Brazil meeting. I > > thought that the announcement of this particular panel may be of some > > interest to the CS community and hence my email. > > > > FYI, > > /John > > > > Disclaimers: My views alone; no panel was consulted in their preparation. > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 05:13:18 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:43:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> <87323243-9564-46F3-BC1B-7B08CFCFE819@istaff.org> Message-ID: <2656FC92-CC3C-4F5E-AD82-90364D54B5AB@hserus.net> fully agree to what mawaki says. --srs (iPad) > On 18-Nov-2013, at 15:32, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > +1 to J. Curran latest post here. > > ICANN has no legitimacy to choose CS members ("representatives") to a group they have decided to form? I don't get that. ICANN includes CS members, doesn't it? What else is the ALAC crowd if not CS? And we've seen non-commercial stakeholder group members making [trimmed the whole email and i agree with it 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Nov 18 05:31:39 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:01:39 +0430 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees In-Reply-To: <5289A81A.1060608@apc.org> References: <3ys99ipevvk2gri3n5nh0ll4.1384738221887@email.android.com> <5289A81A.1060608@apc.org> Message-ID: It is critical that some of our MAG colleagues are kept in there and not rotated. I don't know if we noted it or not but there are private sector MAG members continuously on the MAG and have never been rotated off. This is one of the objections that should be raised loudly. I support Anriette's comment. In fact, we should also forward the names of IGC MAG members already on the MAG and a statement that reinforces and endorses that these members continue from IGC. Best Fouad On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear c.a. > > Speaking as a MAG member here.. I think not all of us on the MAG do speak > loudly enough. This places a burden on those of us who do speak loudly, and > who are heard. > > In the last rotation of the MAG some of the more vocal and active and > critical MAG members were removed. > > The Nomcom should not just think of adding new names, they should, as you > say, add names of people who will be taken seriously in the MAG and who are > willing to take risks, but also who are able to be strategic. > > And I think it is also important to keep some of us who are on the MAG who > have managed to have some influence - e.g. in terms of getting focus on > issues such as human rights and surveillance. and who have conveyed concerns > from broader civil society to the MAG and asked questions in MAG meetings. > > BUT - the structural issue remains. The MAG does not have authority over > anything other than the organising of the event. Even the strongest MAG > cannot fix that. > > We need capacity at the secretariat and institutional level. > > Anriette > > > > On 18/11/2013 03:36, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Anri, you give more reasons for us to make sure that we recommend names > committed to these changes. > > Eight IGFs have passed and there is an impressive resistance to significant > change. Are we choosing our reps wisely? > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Anriette Esterhuysen > Date: 17-11-2013 20:05 (GMT-03:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees > > > Dear c.a. > > The report of the working group on IGF improvements actually went a long way > towards recognising where the IGF is not meeting its mandate, and it does > make recommendations for the IGF to do this. > > It could have said more - we spent a lot of time evaluating the extent to > which the IGF had met its mandate or not, but some of the participants in > the group did not want to go into to much detail, in part because they did > not want a more empowered IGF. > > Nevertheless, speaking as a MAG member for the past year and a half, I think > that most people on the MAG at present do want the IGF to do more. > > That era where some of the influential people in the IGF did not want it to > achieve anything or take any risks is actually over. Other people on the MAG > can share their views. > > The bottleneck is capacity and leadership. > > Without political leadership, a special adviser, resources, and senior staff > at secretariat level the IGF will not break through the barriers necessary > for it to effectively do what paragraph 72 says it should. > > Can the MAG change this? I don't think so. I think what we need is for UN > member states to make a resolution that goes to the UNGA on strenghtening > IGF capacity, and for ALL stakeholder groups to write to the UN SG urging > him to appoint the special advisor as soon as possible. > > We should ask that the appointment be made in a way that consults all > stakeholders. I suspect that is not an option, but we could still ask. > > Anriette > > > On 17/11/2013 22:42, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > I meant UNSG, of course. Sorry... > > > > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > Date: 17-11-2013 18:34 (GMT-03:00) > To: Ian Peter ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees > > > I do hope the Nomcom selects people who have a clear perception that the IGF > is not fulfilling its mandate as per the 12 items of para.72 of the Tunis > Agenda and commit to a significant change in its actions and approach > (please take a look at my WGEC report). > > *But* I am not sure how to insert this in the criteria. And an explicit > comitment to this might mean rejection by the UNSA... > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ps: I am not a candidate. > > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Ian Peter > Date: 17-11-2013 17:28 (GMT-03:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees > > > > Just a quick note and update - > > within 24 hours we will be posting on IGC list the selection criteria to be > used by the Nomcom for this years MAG nominations. Nominees or their > nominators will be given an opportunity to provide statements to the MAG in > support of their nomination providing background relevant to the nomination. > > We will at the same time provide a list of nominations received to date, > plus the opportunity for late nominations over the next couple of days. This > will be short because of our very tight deadlines. > > More to come within a day. > > > Ian Peter > (non voting Nomcom chair) > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 18 05:39:53 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 04:39:53 -0600 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees In-Reply-To: References: <3ys99ipevvk2gri3n5nh0ll4.1384738221887@email.android.com> <5289A81A.1060608@apc.org> Message-ID: <20131118103953.GA32503@hserus.net> Fouad Bajwa [18/11/13 15:01 +0430]: >It is critical that some of our MAG colleagues are kept in there and >not rotated. I don't know if we noted it or not but there are private >sector MAG members continuously on the MAG and have never been rotated >off. This is one of the objections that should be raised loudly. Sorry but why? If civil society MAG people should be kept on and not rotated, why should private sector MAG members be treated differently? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Mon Nov 18 06:06:20 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:06:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees In-Reply-To: <20131118103953.GA32503@hserus.net> References: <3ys99ipevvk2gri3n5nh0ll4.1384738221887@email.android.com> <5289A81A.1060608@apc.org> <20131118103953.GA32503@hserus.net> Message-ID: I also noted that contradiction. Either you want CS to follow the template set by private sector or you want to speak against it. Can't have it both ways. More generally, I think this line of reasoning is making the assumption that only those who are, or have already been, on the MAG can be vocal, influential or strategic (I guess when they have a track record being such.) But that does not preclude that people who have not been on the MAG, but are familiar enough or knowledgeable enough of the IG space or have similar experiences, can be just as effective at that. It will be the work of the NomCom to assess such things based on the background information received. Let's not try to pre-empt the process. Thanks, Mawaki p.s. I've seen on this list people urging for the need to bring in "new blood," and then later on we say otherwise when we please. That's what happens when we don't have principles to operate on (and sometimes just reacting to what other stakeholders do.) That being said (and just to state I agree on some part of this thinking, in the interest of balance), I fully understand the need to keep on board in the incoming team one key member from the outgoing team. This could be more than one if we really think we're left with candidates who are not up to the task. On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Fouad Bajwa [18/11/13 15:01 +0430]: > > It is critical that some of our MAG colleagues are kept in there and >> not rotated. I don't know if we noted it or not but there are private >> sector MAG members continuously on the MAG and have never been rotated >> off. This is one of the objections that should be raised loudly. >> > > Sorry but why? If civil society MAG people should be kept on and not > rotated, why should private sector MAG members be treated differently? > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 18 06:21:12 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:51:12 +0430 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees In-Reply-To: <20131118103953.GA32503@hserus.net> References: <3ys99ipevvk2gri3n5nh0ll4.1384738221887@email.android.com> <5289A81A.1060608@apc.org> <20131118103953.GA32503@hserus.net> Message-ID: I guess you might be unaware of who, what, when, why....... On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Fouad Bajwa [18/11/13 15:01 +0430]: > >> It is critical that some of our MAG colleagues are kept in there and >> not rotated. I don't know if we noted it or not but there are private >> sector MAG members continuously on the MAG and have never been rotated >> off. This is one of the objections that should be raised loudly. > > > Sorry but why? If civil society MAG people should be kept on and not > rotated, why should private sector MAG members be treated differently? > -- 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 ekenyanito at gmail.com Mon Nov 18 06:22:10 2013 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:22:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I also support Nnena's candidature for MAG Position. She will surely represent CS very well. Best regards from Kenya, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito. *Author | Researcher | Humanitarian|* *Website:*http://about.me/ekenyanito *Twitter:* @ekenyanito *Skype:* ekenyanito *Phone:* (+254)-786-19-19-30/ (+254)-751-804-120 *“Nurture your mind with great thoughts for you will never go higher than you think.” - Benjamin Disraeli* On 18/11/2013, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > +++1 for Nnenna - with a pre-condition: make your powerful voice heard! :) > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Babatope Soremi > Date: 17-11-2013 20:14 (GMT-03:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,'Gbenga Sesan > Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen > Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day > to Go] URGENT > > +1 for Nnenna's MAG nomination, pls. > > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:16 PM, 'Gbenga Sesan wrote: > +1 for Nnenna MAG nomination. > > --- > 'Gbenga Sesan > @gbengasesan > www.gbengasesan.com > > On Nov 17, 2013, at 7:13 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > My too. Nnenna would be an excellent MAG member. > > Anriette > > > On 17/11/2013 18:00, Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote: > I support Nnenna's nomination for the MAG > > > 2013/11/17, Kabani : > We proposed that those whom have served MAG before should not consider this > time and let other members served the MAG. > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > This is to advise that these are the current nominations received for MAG > Candidates that will go through the process of selection by a randomly > selected NomCom. > > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > 1. > > Asif Kabani > 2. > > Rudi Vansnick > 3. > > Sonigitu Ekpe > 4. > > Imran Ahmed Shah > 5. > > Fouad Bajwa > 6. > > Katim S Touray > 7. > > Stuart Hamilton > > > Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting > clarification > > > -- > Sent from iPad > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Babatope Soremi > > A destructive means can not bring about a constructive end.... > > TB > > > Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of intelligent > effort. > > John Ruskin -- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 18 06:23:18 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:53:18 +0430 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees In-Reply-To: References: <3ys99ipevvk2gri3n5nh0ll4.1384738221887@email.android.com> <5289A81A.1060608@apc.org> <20131118103953.GA32503@hserus.net> Message-ID: Btw, even if all these people apply on their own from their organizations, they are equally valid and IGC comes in the equal balance of all civil society. For example, IGC can propose 20 people and 200 other CS orgs can also propose 20 people or more on their own an will be equally evaluated......so doesn't matter much does it....there is no template...nor was one created. On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > I guess you might be unaware of who, what, when, why....... > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> Fouad Bajwa [18/11/13 15:01 +0430]: >> >>> It is critical that some of our MAG colleagues are kept in there and >>> not rotated. I don't know if we noted it or not but there are private >>> sector MAG members continuously on the MAG and have never been rotated >>> off. This is one of the objections that should be raised loudly. >> >> >> Sorry but why? If civil society MAG people should be kept on and not >> rotated, why should private sector MAG members be treated differently? >> > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -- 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Nov 18 06:25:22 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:55:22 +0430 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day to Go] URGENT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nnenna's gotta be there, I am telling you all. She would be a strong, vocal and well aware MAG member that can certainly voice CS issues! Take care all. On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito wrote: > I also support Nnena's candidature for MAG Position. She will surely > represent CS very well. > > Best regards from Kenya, > Ephraim Percy Kenyanito. > > *Author | Researcher | Humanitarian|* > > *Website:*http://about.me/ekenyanito > > *Twitter:* @ekenyanito > > *Skype:* ekenyanito > > *Phone:* (+254)-786-19-19-30/ (+254)-751-804-120 > > *“Nurture your mind with great thoughts for you will never go higher than > you think.” - Benjamin Disraeli* > > > On 18/11/2013, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> +++1 for Nnenna - with a pre-condition: make your powerful voice heard! :) >> >> []s fraternos >> >> --c.a. >> >> ------------ >> C. A. Afonso >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Babatope Soremi >> Date: 17-11-2013 20:14 (GMT-03:00) >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,'Gbenga Sesan >> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen >> Subject: Re: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [1 More Day >> to Go] URGENT >> >> +1 for Nnenna's MAG nomination, pls. >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:16 PM, 'Gbenga Sesan wrote: >> +1 for Nnenna MAG nomination. >> >> --- >> 'Gbenga Sesan >> @gbengasesan >> www.gbengasesan.com >> >> On Nov 17, 2013, at 7:13 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >> My too. Nnenna would be an excellent MAG member. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 17/11/2013 18:00, Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote: >> I support Nnenna's nomination for the MAG >> >> >> 2013/11/17, Kabani : >> We proposed that those whom have served MAG before should not consider this >> time and let other members served the MAG. >> >> On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> This is to advise that these are the current nominations received for MAG >> Candidates that will go through the process of selection by a randomly >> selected NomCom. >> >> Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse >> and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >> >> 1. >> >> Asif Kabani >> 2. >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> 3. >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe >> 4. >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> 5. >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> 6. >> >> Katim S Touray >> 7. >> >> Stuart Hamilton >> >> >> Note: Vincent Solomon and Carlos Vera Quintana volunteered but awaiting >> clarification >> >> >> -- >> Sent from iPad >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Babatope Soremi >> >> A destructive means can not bring about a constructive end.... >> >> TB >> >> >> Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of intelligent >> effort. >> >> John Ruskin > > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 18 06:39:13 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:09:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees In-Reply-To: References: <3ys99ipevvk2gri3n5nh0ll4.1384738221887@email.android.com> <5289A81A.1060608@apc.org> <20131118103953.GA32503@hserus.net> Message-ID: <437ADB07-DA2B-475D-919B-902CC57AB3AC@hserus.net> It is absolutely certain that other civil society organizations will definitely propose their own nominees (whether or not they're members of that organization) who they feel will best represent civil society. What, who, why is not as material, Fouad - if we object to certain people being on the MAG, then we invite counter objections to other long standing civ soc members staying on the MAG which would rather not be raised, I hope --srs (iPad) > On 18-Nov-2013, at 16:53, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Btw, even if all these people apply on their own from their > organizations, they are equally valid and IGC comes in the equal > balance of all civil society. For example, IGC can propose 20 people > and 200 other CS orgs can also propose 20 people or more on their own > an will be equally evaluated......so doesn't matter much does > it....there is no template...nor was one created. > >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> I guess you might be unaware of who, what, when, why....... >> >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >>> Fouad Bajwa [18/11/13 15:01 +0430]: >>> >>>> It is critical that some of our MAG colleagues are kept in there and >>>> not rotated. I don't know if we noted it or not but there are private >>>> sector MAG members continuously on the MAG and have never been rotated >>>> off. This is one of the objections that should be raised loudly. >>> >>> >>> Sorry but why? If civil society MAG people should be kept on and not >>> rotated, why should private sector MAG members be treated differently? >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor >> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Mon Nov 18 06:59:48 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:59:48 +0800 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees In-Reply-To: <437ADB07-DA2B-475D-919B-902CC57AB3AC@hserus.net> References: <3ys99ipevvk2gri3n5nh0ll4.1384738221887@email.android.com> <5289A81A.1060608@apc.org> <20131118103953.GA32503@hserus.net> <437ADB07-DA2B-475D-919B-902CC57AB3AC@hserus.net> Message-ID: <3AADF84A-9E2F-4911-A495-FF1D7BC50948@ciroap.org> On 18 Nov 2013, at 7:39 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > What, who, why is not as material, Fouad - if we object to certain people being on the MAG, then we invite counter objections to other long standing civ soc members staying on the MAG which would rather not be raised, I hope There are no long-standing civil society members staying on the MAG. Unlike other stakeholder groups, we have rotated our members regularly. The only stakeholder groups with members who have never rotated are the private sector and technical community. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 07:04:04 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:34:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees In-Reply-To: <3AADF84A-9E2F-4911-A495-FF1D7BC50948@ciroap.org> References: <3ys99ipevvk2gri3n5nh0ll4.1384738221887@email.android.com> <5289A81A.1060608@apc.org> <20131118103953.GA32503@hserus.net> <437ADB07-DA2B-475D-919B-902CC57AB3AC@hserus.net> <3AADF84A-9E2F-4911-A495-FF1D7BC50948@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <57948CEA-8FEC-41BA-BCA1-423A92EE0DA0@hserus.net> In other words, private sector and a long standing constitutent of civil society. If you disagree with that and only, as Mawaki said, count professional NGOs engaged full time on igov as civil society, then you are entirely welcome to your views, but I reject them. --srs (iPad) > On 18-Nov-2013, at 17:29, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 18 Nov 2013, at 7:39 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> What, who, why is not as material, Fouad - if we object to certain people being on the MAG, then we invite counter objections to other long standing civ soc members staying on the MAG which would rather not be raised, I hope > > There are no long-standing civil society members staying on the MAG. Unlike other stakeholder groups, we have rotated our members regularly. The only stakeholder groups with members who have never rotated are the private sector and technical community. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 07:32:40 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:32:40 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance Message-ID: In other words Temple guardians beat the bushes for a (shrinking) leadership http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html All the buzzwords are there. They rehash "global", meaning US control. Boring. 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Nov 18 08:58:45 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:58:45 +0100 (CET) Subject: [bestbits] [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <155104122.15268.1384783125971.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j27> Thanks Louis Are these "high level panel" figures mentioned in the link the crew of the "Noah's arch" sailing towards its safe future or that od the "raft of the Medusa" struggling desperately for the survival of the US-centric Internet ? Anyway, Brazil's initiative give the IGF a new impetus. I'd wish the same occurring in the boring WSIS follow-up process ... Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 18/11/13 13:33 > De : "Louis Pouzin (well)" > A : "bestbits" , "Internet Governance" > Copie à : > Objet : [bestbits] [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance > > In other words > > Temple guardians beat the bushes for a (shrinking) leadership > > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html > > All the buzzwords are there. They rehash "global", meaning US control. Boring. > > Louis > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Nov 18 09:01:20 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:01:20 -0200 Subject: [governance] URGENT Brazil Conference on Internet Governance #Details #Strategy URGENT CALL FOR COMMENTS Message-ID: Dear IGC, Greetings from Buenos Aires! As you know a note went out this morning and you can read the email below. In essence the model for engagement *had already been decided *by the Government of Brazil and ICANN, some of the I stars until this was released were also surprised that the model for engagement* had already been developed* without discussion within the global Internet Governance community. Regardless of whether this was developed by Brazil nor ICANN, it is simply unacceptable and lacks the necessary legitimacy and openness and transparency that is warranted of anyone desiring to create a space to have multistakeholder dialogue on Internet Governance. Having the form but lacking the spirit and legitimacy is like having token participation. To this end, it becomes expedient that we as the IGC need to move quickly to finalise the letter that global civil society will send out to the Government of Brazil now that we have full and better details. *Background About the I star Group* This was formed to essentially be a round table where those that come around it come as equals and feed into the process of selecting their representatives to the organising committee and Agenda of the Meeting in Brazil. The High Level Panel that was published yesterday is separate from the I star although there are some who are part of the I star like ICANN and ISOC *which includes IETF, IAB etc. Personally, I feel that the mechanism in which the bottom up process for planning and giving input has effectively hijacked the good faith discussions with ICANN CEO in Bali. It is important to distinguish at this stage that the organisation of the High Level Panel is separate and divorced from the I star. The steering committee at this stage will hold the power and discretion to accept and receive proposals and influence the Agenda. As global civil society, we should not only be submitting proposals but we should as we unequivocally mentioned in Bali be influencing the Agenda. Clearly from the nature of the planning committee that has already put in place the rules for engagement and ruled on content and effectively dictating the Agenda. This is simply NOT multistakeholder, no matter how much it gets dressed up.It may have components of MS but for legitimacy within a global landscape it lacks legitimacy. We were told in Bali that the details were vague but from the extensive details about the model for engagement clearly both Brazil and ICANN held out on us. Anything less is simply not acceptable. This gives us two options> 1. That we demand space in the Steering Committee not as separate civil society organisations but as a single coherent voice into the process and this is where the letter that was drafted prior to Bali becomes relevant and needful, 2.That the joint civil society organisations jointly issue a Press Release and send to all Media Networks globally and we have many journalists on this list who can help accelerate this process. 3.That global civil society organisation accelerate the discussions that have already been taking place off list to work on jointly framing the discussions and preparing our position papers before March 1, 2014 following which there will be community consultation and proposal consolidation. *Reasons Why We should Engage with I star group* There will be certain positions where we will need alliances on and it does not make sense to burn bridges but rather to engage and do so intelligently with wisdom. Even if there is an appearance of bad faith in some quarters that should not stop up from behaving with integrity, character and in good faith. Values command the respect of our colleagues as engagement and negotiations will play out not just in 2014 but beyond. Because of this, we should not isolate ourselves but dialogue and engage. My advice would be to come to the table in the I star engagement and lend our voice as civil society. To lend our voices as civil society, we need to engage with all these stakeholders. The key thing here is to ENGAGE. There will be certain positions that we will need our alliances to agree on, in terms of key positions on things like the preservation of an open and free internet as mandated by our Charter. *Recommendations for the IGC* 1.Start preparing proposals for the Conference and we need to submit it on March 1, 2014. The email below shows that there will be a 60 day period for community consultation and proposal consolidation prior to the Conference in late April/early May 2014 . A special mailing list can be created within the IGC that is closed where we will invite people to subscribe and the list will be unnaccessible until full discussions have been aired out. The work will be consolidated, synthesised, summarised and then put to the the IGC mailing list for calls for consensus before it is submitted. 2.That civil society globally also monitors the Plenipot preparation meetings taking place globally and focus all our energy into preparations for Brazil. We should also prepare to monitor discussions in Busan, Korea. 3.That civil society needs to also consider that 89 countries who signed the Seoul Framework will be in the Hague next year and as such this could shift the landscape of things to greater demands for control by governments that could just as easily affect internet governance. On a macro scale, I would encourage civil society groups to start thinking about the critical issues or agenda that should be considered by the community not only for Brazil but for broader engagement in other key forums coming up. Let me have your thoughts please. Warm Regards, Sala in my personal capacity *From: *Adiel Akplogan *Subject: **[I-coordination] Brazil Meeting Planning* *Date: *18 November 2013 6:43:04 pm GMT+8 *To: *"I-coordination at nro.net" Dear 1net participants Following a meeting held this week between Brazil and some I* representatives, we have got some further details that I would like to share with you on the meeting, specifically on its planing and the need for us (1net initiative) to contribute by appointing representatives to the committees being setup to drive its preparation. The information below will be used to update the Meeting concept paper circulated on this list earlier (which can now be published on our web site as well) It is clear that the tight timelines for this meeting will require expedient processes, and would ask that everyone work as best they can within the constraints we have been given. While this is not ideal from a planning perspective, it is better for us to still strive to work together as a single community to get something positive out of the meeting in Brazil. An extract of the salient points of the meeting is reproduced further down. As immediate action from this group we will need: 1. Representatives from the 1net initiative who can be in Sao Paolo on 25 November to attend part of the CGI meeting along with Virgilio Almeida where CGI support to the Brazil meeting will be discussed. We are also invited to be represented the next day (26 November) at the press conference where Brazil will announce additional details about the meeting (most likely some of the information in this planning document]; If you are interested and can attend either of these days, please notify me ( cel at afrinic.net); we do not know at this time how many or process for selection of attendees. 2. The meeting secretariat apparently will have some 1net representatives; again, if you are interested, please identify yourself. We might need to wait to see how CGI (presuming they accept being the meeting secretariat) wishes to handle selection of these representatives. 3. There are 4 important meeting planning committees; these identify some specific counts of reps from various communities. while the I* group can figure out how to handle the Internet technical community representation, we will need civil society, business and academia to also quickly nominate representatives to these committees. While We do not yet have timing regarding how long to appoint representatives, but given the meeting timelines it would be best if these were completed by the end of this month. We count on your cooperation and support throughout this process. Thank you. ==================== Information gathered from the meeting ========================== Name: Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance Date/Location: Sao Paolo, Brazil on April 23/24, 2014. Brazil is forming a global multistakeholder steering committee to organize the event. The committee will include representatives from the Brazilian CGI, the Brazilian government, and representatives of 1net (the global dialog on the evolution of multistakeholder internet governance). 1net representatives will include members of the global technical, academic, civil society, and business communities. ** Purpose. The meeting will aim to produce universal internet principles and an institutional framework for multistakeholder internet governance. The framework will include a roadmap to evolve and globalize current institutions, and new mechanisms to address the emerging internet governance topics. The conference will not include any discussion or activity to create solutions for specific topics such as security, privacy, surveillance, etc. - Success is a final joint declaration of internet principles and an institutional framework for multistakeholder internet governance. The declaration should aim to be concrete/practical, linked to prior/current internet governance initiatives, and hopefully include some next steps. - The conference is not intend to discuss or engage in creating solutions for specific topics such as security, privacy, surveillance, etc. - Any party/stakeholder may submit proposals to the conference. Proposed deadline for submittal of proposals is set as March 1, 2014. Giving a 60 day period for community consultation and proposal consolidation prior to the conference in late April/early May 2014. - One of several input sources to this conference will be the high-level panel that ICANN will introduce shortly in partnership with The University of Southern California / Annenberg Foundation and the World Economic Forum. The panel aims to produce its final document by end of February with proposed Internet principles and an institutional framework. Virgilio Almeida will act as the chair of the Brazilian side throughout the preparatory processes. CGI will be asked to serve in an important operational and strategic role. Virgilio will seek the support of all the CGI stakeholders at their regularly scheduled meeting of November 25 in Sao Paolo. He asks that /1net community leaders to attend part of that meeting, to lend their global support of the Brazil conference. Planning & Organisation: 4 committees will be formed to ensure the success of the meeting (see details below). The four committees will be supported/coordinated by a common secretariat to manage the work of the committees and coordinate communications activities including a conference web site. The secretariat is likely to be housed at CGI (pending approval on the 25th); the secretariat will also include representation from /1net (the global Internet community) to ensure constant alignment. ++ Committee No.1: Multistakeholder High-Level Committee. This is the committee that will set the high-level political tone and objectives of the conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success. This committee will include 8 high level governmental representatives (ministerial level), and 8 /1net Internet community representatives (senior executive level). The 8 governmental reps. will include Brazil and other co-hosting governments to be selected by Brazil. We discussed Germany, India, Ghana, Turkey, and one of the "five-eyes" (possibly Australia or the UK). But this selection is completely up to Brazil. The 8 /1net Internet community members will be selected by the emerging /1net coordination committee. They will be selected to include 2 from industry/business; 2 from civil society; 2 from technical organizations; 1from academia; and 1 from NGO. ++ Committee No.2: Council of Governmental advisors. Participation in this committee will be managed by Ambassador Benedicto (Foreign affairs) to include any other governmental representatives who wish to provide input/advice to Committee No.1. This ensures inclusivity and openness to broad governmental engagement and eventual participation at the conference. ++ Committee No.3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee. This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received by March 1 into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre-during-post conference. This committee will include 6 governmental representatives, and 6 /1net community representatives. The 6 governmental reps. will include Brazil, CGI, and other government representatives to be selected by Brazil. We discussed the EU and South Korea as good possibilities. But this selection is completely up to Brazil. The 6 /1net community members will be selected by the emerging /1net coordination committee. They will be selected to include 2 from industry/business; 2 from civil society; 2 from technical organizations. ++ Committee No.4: Logistics/Organizing Committee. This is the team that will oversee meeting management, venue, translation, activities, travel visa support, etc. This committee will be staffed and managed by CGI (again pending their approval at their 25th meeting). The global community may be asked for support as needed. ** Finances. Brazil offered to cover all meeting expenses (thank you Brazil!). We then discussed that /1net community may organize an independent effort to support parties from developing countries who may need financial support to attend the meeting. ** Launch. The conference global launch will be at a press conference to held in Sao Paolo at the CGI office on the morning of Tuesday November 26. The press conference will include members of the Brazilian community (government and CGI), /1net community leaders, and hopefully some co-host governments to ensure broad/global representation. ------ - a. _______________________________________________ I-coordination mailing list I-coordination at nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Nov 18 09:32:54 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:32:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees In-Reply-To: <20131118103953.GA32503@hserus.net> References: <3ys99ipevvk2gri3n5nh0ll4.1384738221887@email.android.com> <5289A81A.1060608@apc.org> <20131118103953.GA32503@hserus.net> Message-ID: <528A2516.4010905@wzb.eu> All civil society people on the MAG have rotated except for Qusai who might or might not be civil society. However, there are several private sector members who have been on the MAG from day one. Anriette suggests that we should not rotate all cs members. I fully agree with that. Longer terms can help to make participation more effective. However, a second term only makes sense for people who are willing to speak up and do some work. jeanette Am 18.11.2013 11:39, schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: > Fouad Bajwa [18/11/13 15:01 +0430]: >> It is critical that some of our MAG colleagues are kept in there and >> not rotated. I don't know if we noted it or not but there are private >> sector MAG members continuously on the MAG and have never been rotated >> off. This is one of the objections that should be raised loudly. > > Sorry but why? If civil society MAG people should be kept on and not > rotated, why should private sector MAG members be treated differently? > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Nov 18 09:41:06 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:41:06 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <155104122.15268.1384783125971.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j27> References: <155104122.15268.1384783125971.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j27> Message-ID: At 14:58 18/11/2013, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >Thanks Louis >Are these "high level panel" figures mentioned in the link the crew >of the "Noah's arch" sailing towards its safe future or that od the >"raft of the Medusa" struggling desperately for the survival of the >US-centric Internet ? >Anyway, Brazil's initiative give the IGF a new impetus. I'd wish the >same occurring in the boring WSIS follow-up process ... En fait, il faut bien reconnaître que tout cela est rasoir parce que nous nous plaçons dans le contexte de leur rasoir technique d'Occam [Occlusion américaine ?]. Il semble nécessaire de prendre un peu d'air et d'altitude. En particulier de relire très sérieusement la première phrase de l'article 2 des droits de l'homme et de faire campagne pour la liberté de parole et de pensée dans sa langue, sa culture et ses acquis techniques et scientifiques. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon Nov 18 10:53:00 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:53:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> Dear Anja Thank you for this. I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change proposal. Could it be differences between ministries? I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications. Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are just a but left out of the loop. But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by multi-stakeholder IG. That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed solutions. Anriette On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, > I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India > made to the WGEC (see below this message and here: > http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/ > ) > > Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal > seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications > and Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly > vocal about his support for multistakeholder models for Internet > governance. However, during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this > month, the Indian government again tabled a proposal for a > multilateral Internet policy to be established under the UN, very > similar to the earlier UN CIRP. > > Comments most welcome. > > Best, > Anja > > > Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take > over the governance of the Internet? > > > by Anja Kovacs > > /Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > give the strong impression that this is indeed the case. / > > In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) > , which met for the second > time in Geneva last week, the Indian government recommended the following: > > The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral > body for formulation of international Internet-related public > policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and > relevant inter-governmental and international organisations in > advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in > Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop > globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated > with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. > > Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within > the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with > India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related > Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have > been revived. > > Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is > problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse > governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose > dominance needs to be established at the expense of other > stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other > stakeholders will only be given an advisory role in Internet > governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed to play the roles > defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially where > the role of civil society is concerned - are outmoded is something > that has been recognised widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting, > India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of the > Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect > its proposal. > > Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only > came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil > society representative. The latter took with this a position quite > radically different from other Indian members of civil society active > in Internet governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in > this field, who believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet > governance is the way forward. > > Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there > might at times be space for multilateralism within this > multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes > to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the right to > privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new treaty, then from > that point onwards, governments would take over as negotiating > treaties is their job. > > However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones > currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a > multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, > including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go > forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of > government dominance in the policy process, irrespective of the > problem at hand, and thus requires agreement only among governments. > This not only means that inputs by other stakeholders need not > necessarily be given due consideration, it also leaves the Internet > policy making process much more vulnerable to the vagaries of global > geopolitics. > > The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also > for developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues > associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet > resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the > coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies > overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without > their flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To > think that principles that should govern the work of these bodies can > be formulated or effectively applied without a central involvement of > all stakeholders already involved in these groups (stakeholders who > often have, it should be said, conflicting views about the way > forward) is obviously deeply flawed. > > The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on > how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained > in the Tunis Agenda. > > India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that > would privilege governments in the making of international > Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic > consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been > established by the government precisely for such purposes in August of > this year. > > For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a > surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications > and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year > (and as recently as 17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism > for effective Internet policy making, and his own commitment to this > model. > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Nov 18 14:11:01 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 04:11:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Brazil announcements Message-ID: Hi, Could someone provide a link to any press release from the Brazil govt's press conference this morning? And interested to know if anyone can say what the Brazil govt wants from the meeting? I'm remembering from Bali govt reps being quite insistent that the five principles President Rouseff presented to the UN general assembly being essential. Other issues? 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Nov 18 14:31:25 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:31:25 -0200 Subject: [governance] Brazil announcements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This are piece of news I read today (in Portuguese, but Google translator worked for Bill): http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35419&sid=4#.Uoop3yjIe69 http://www.correiobraziliense.com.br/app/noticia/politica/2013/11/18/interna_politica,399116/brasil-promovera-conferencia-internacional-sobre-governanca-na-internet.shtml Marília On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi, > > Could someone provide a link to any press release from the Brazil govt's > press conference this morning? > > And interested to know if anyone can say what the Brazil govt wants from > the meeting? I'm remembering from Bali govt reps being quite insistent > that the five principles President Rouseff presented to the UN general > assembly being essential. Other issues? > > 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 > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bellagamba at isoc.org Mon Nov 18 14:39:14 2013 From: bellagamba at isoc.org (Sebastian Bellagamba) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:39:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] Brazil announcements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8986B606-5D4D-4641-A36D-8C3B7D5C3757@isoc.org> Hi Adam >From the presidential website: (http://blog.planalto.gov.br/brasil-vai-sediar-reuniao-internacional-sobre-governanca-da-internet-em-abril-de-2014/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=brasil-vai-sediar-reuniao-internacional-sobre-governanca-da-internet-em-abril-de-2014) Brazil will host international meeting on Internet governance in April 2014 The Ministers of Foreign Affairs , Luiz Alberto Figueiredo ; Communications , Paulo Bernardo; and Science , Technology and Innovation , Marco Antonio Raupp , announced on Monday ( 18 ) , during a press conference that Brazil will host an international conference on Internet governance on 23rd and April 24, 2014 . According to Paulo Bernardo, the meeting should take place in S?o Paulo . The goal, according to Figueiredo , is organizing a multi-stakeholder meeting to seek common understandings about the subject . "The goal of the conference is a broad discussion of all stakeholders and sectors directly linked to the internet Governments , businesses , academia, civil society. We are acting internationally for the protection of human rights. This is the main guidance from our government, to protect freedom of expression, human rights and privacy. We are determined to continue on this path", said Figueiredo . The purpose of the meeting was arranged at a hearing of President Dilma Rousseff with the CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) , Fadi Chehad? , on October 9th. In this occasion, he said that came "to discuss with her how to achieve practical solutions starting from her her vision for the future, because the world's confidence in the global Internet was injured" and that the idea of the conference was to "discuss how together we set the grounds for our work in governing the internet". On 18/11/2013, at 16:11, "Adam Peake" > wrote: Hi, Could someone provide a link to any press release from the Brazil govt's press conference this morning? And interested to know if anyone can say what the Brazil govt wants from the meeting? I'm remembering from Bali govt reps being quite insistent that the five principles President Rouseff presented to the UN general assembly being essential. Other issues? 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 14:39:17 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:39:17 -0300 Subject: [governance] Brazil announcements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56E2C6A8-9520-4134-803D-8EFE1FF318F5@uzh.ch> Well, the translation worked for me, technically, but the resulting headline---Brazil defends new global entity to manage Internet---not so much. Hopefully the journalist did miss some nuances…. Bill On Nov 18, 2013, at 4:31 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > This are piece of news I read today (in Portuguese, but Google translator worked for Bill): > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35419&sid=4#.Uoop3yjIe69 > http://www.correiobraziliense.com.br/app/noticia/politica/2013/11/18/interna_politica,399116/brasil-promovera-conferencia-internacional-sobre-governanca-na-internet.shtml > > Marília > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi, > > Could someone provide a link to any press release from the Brazil govt's press conference this morning? > > And interested to know if anyone can say what the Brazil govt wants from the meeting? I'm remembering from Bali govt reps being quite insistent that the five principles President Rouseff presented to the UN general assembly being essential. Other issues? > > 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 > > > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at cgi.br Mon Nov 18 15:36:08 2013 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:36:08 -0200 Subject: [governance] Brazil announcements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <528A7A38.40805@cgi.br> http://www.mc.gov.br/telecomunicacoes/noticias-telecomunicacoes/28991-sao-paulo-vai-sediar-conferencia-internacional-sobre-governanca-na-internet. ================================= On 18/11/13 17:11, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi, > > Could someone provide a link to any press release from the Brazil govt's press conference this morning? > > And interested to know if anyone can say what the Brazil govt wants from the meeting? I'm remembering from Bali govt reps being quite insistent that the five principles President Rouseff presented to the UN general assembly being essential. Other issues? > > 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Nov 18 16:34:46 2013 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 22:34:46 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> Message-ID: Many governments experience internal tensions in those issues. Between foreign Affairs ministries and Justice/interior/home affairs or communications ministries, etc... Which is normal given their diverse points of views and responsibilities. B. On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Anja > > Thank you for this. > > I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could not get > the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed this similarity > with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change proposal. > > Could it be differences between ministries? > > I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, the > ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully cleared with, > or co-developed with, the ministry of communications. > > Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific > matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works will for > the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are just a but left > out of the loop. > > But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, > including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder participation, > should be watched carefully, not just those who openly put a multi-lateral > model on the table. Often governments pay lip service to > 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable also working in > multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their speeches and inputs > without really concretising what they mean by multi-stakeholder IG. > > That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear > commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed > solutions. > > Anriette > > > > On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, I > wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India made to > the WGEC (see below this message and here: > http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/) > > Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal > seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and > Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly vocal about > his support for multistakeholder models for Internet governance. However, > during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government > again tabled a proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be > established under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP. > > Comments most welcome. > > Best, > Anja > > Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take over > the governance of the Internet? by Anja Kovacs > > *Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation give > the strong impression that this is indeed the case. * > > In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC), > which met for the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government > recommended the following: > > The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body > for formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The > proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant > inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity > within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG > report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on > public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of > critical Internet resources. > > Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within the > field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s > earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies > within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have been revived. > > Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is > problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse > governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose > dominance needs to be established at the expense of other stakeholders. > Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other stakeholders will only > be given an advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only > be allowed to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these > definitions - especially where the role of civil society is concerned - are > outmoded is something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s > WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of > the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect its > proposal. > > Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only > came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil society > representative. The latter took with this a position quite radically > different from other Indian members of civil society active in Internet > governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in this field, who > believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way > forward. > > Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there > might at times be space for multilateralism within this multistakeholder > model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the conclusion > that the best way forward to protect the right to privacy of all people in > the Internet age is a new treaty, then from that point onwards, governments > would take over as negotiating treaties is their job. > > However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones > currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a > multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, including > on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go forward. The > India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of government dominance > in the policy process, irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus > requires agreement only among governments. This not only means that inputs > by other stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it > also leaves the Internet policy making process much more vulnerable to the > vagaries of global geopolitics. > > The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also for > developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues > associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet > resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the > coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies > overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without their > flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To think that > principles that should govern the work of these bodies can be formulated or > effectively applied without a central involvement of all stakeholders > already involved in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be > said, conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed. > > The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on how to > fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis > Agenda. > > India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that > would privilege governments in the making of international Internet-related > public policy was made without any domestic consultation, even if a > Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been established by the government > precisely for such purposes in August of this year. > > For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a surprise > - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and > Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year (and as > recently as 17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism for effective > Internet policy making, and his own commitment to this model. > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy ( www.internetjurisdiction.net) Member, ICANN Board of Directors Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 17:30:27 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 04:00:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> Message-ID: We need to be even more vigilant when other, nominally CS, individuals or organizations have an agenda or propose solutions entirely at cross purposes to our interests. --srs (iPad) > > That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed solutions. > > Anriette -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 18 18:51:09 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 00:51:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> <1C0F749C-7F2A-4094-973E-0EB9072DF19F@hserus.net> <52897AB3.6040408@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20131119005109.3ce43a0b@quill> Am Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:41:39 -0500 schrieb David Allen : > On Nov 17, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > Trying to fix this panel would be a waste of time, just like > > trying to fix 1net dialogue will be. We are being led a merry > > chase. > > As you said initially, time to get on with some serious work. +1 Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Nov 18 19:15:24 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:15:24 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <5289A41A.7030801@apc.org> References: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> <5289A41A.7030801@apc.org> Message-ID: <3C3AEF25-30F7-45FA-89B6-AD1DE1AB6135@cafonso.ca> Dear Anri, This is one of the 5 panels announced by Icann in Durban. It is an Icann panel, not some group who will lead the meeting's preparatory process. BTW *now* is the time to send the CS statements to BR. If I can ba of help, let me know. frt rgds --c.a. sent from a dumbphone > On 18/11/2013, at 02:22, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Not one person from civil society who has been active in IGF since the WSIS process. > > Frankly, I am not at all surprised, but it is still extremely disappointing and just hope this does not signal what we can expect from the Brazil meeting. > > Moreover, developing country representation is extremely poor. > > Agree with Jeremy that we should act. > > Anriette > > > > On 18/11/2013 04:06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 18/11/13 08:43, John Curran > wrote: > > >> A high-level panel has been organized to consider the > issues surrounding global Internet cooperation - > > >> > > >> "The Panel plans to release a high-level report in early > 2014 for public comment. The report will include principles for > global Internet cooperation, proposed frameworks for such > cooperation and a roadmap for future Internet governance > challenges." > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the > civil society representatives for the High Level Panel on the > Future of Global Internet Cooperation, which is what became of its > 5th panel on Internet evolution. Previously Fadi had claimed that > the fate of the 5th panel would be a decision for (what is now) > the 1net dialogue, but evidently this was just more bluff. > > > > > > The civil society representatives that ICANN helpful chose on > our behalf do not include the most expert names on Internet > governance evolution. And meanwhile ISOC is "representing" civil > society in other processes such as in the UNGA draft resolution on > the right to privacy in the digital age. The technical community, > supported by its hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, is > eating broader civil society alive. > > > > > > We are being completely left behind while we are dithering > over questions about whether to send the letter nominating our > representatives to the Brazil meeting, and whether our mailing > list should be open or closed. It is absolutely imperative now > that we put internal process issues on hold, and focus on urgent > substantive issues. > > > > > > Will post something more practical about all this to the new > (though now already mis-named) "summit" list. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > *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 > > > > > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement > knowledge hub | > http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > > > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > > > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are > strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your > end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > > - -- > - ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSiaQZAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewvJsH/2UN20/QDncUSO3Ksuzz7RbU > 9AxjK13KM0nxy+jmfJnzMQ1Vg9rpv3N3wN7DiLqkw4+V2PZl0qZ69tgIlpoCO2xG > wgLJ1vau7yADIDNXLGSucmFUw3+qcIW6tHxWAAuCx/6VYrJkyLUpab6E/JDS0u2k > +pQgkHTwbrpQCUCRWHhzRGIs3G17sMZF8rH7UNaKXk6Cw7yyCkm1imRMTPYrS4Fh > Vr1U/i49mEx+cV9ejhbMU/aLY/8VAOBzljt3j5RccwDEF0NmDlLkdPlIfRNSjX+H > 8Ye7m3rJgzcc+v4ZnmpGHVPUl7/KVwURNgSV5pMOg5aEi29J4UuDl30Fct5Vz9s= > =ViIp > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 18 20:55:52 2013 From: angelacdaly at gmail.com (Angela Daly) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 12:55:52 +1100 Subject: [governance] 2013 meeting report for DCexpression at Bali IGF Message-ID: Available here: http://dcexpression.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/meeting-report-from-the-igf-2013/ Thanks, Angela -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 18 20:30:46 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:30:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] Brazil announcements In-Reply-To: <528A7A38.40805@cgi.br> References: <528A7A38.40805@cgi.br> Message-ID: Thanks Hartmut, Here is the Google translation. It will be on 23-24 April. izumi São Paulo will host international conference on Internet governance - [image: Print] - [image: E-mail] *Scheduled for 23 and April 24, the meeting will address topics such as network security, espionage and cyber crimes* *Brasilia, 11/18/2013* - Sao Paulo will host on 23 and 24 April 2014, an international conference to discuss the new model of global governance of the Internet. The Federal Government's proposal was announced on the morning of Monday the Ministers of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, Science and Technology Marco Antonio Raupp, and Foreign Affairs, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo. [image: Mesa MG 2635]*From left to right, Ministers of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, Science and Technology Marco Antonio Raupp, and Foreign Affairs, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo* The idea for the meeting came from the speech of President Dilma Rousseff at the opening of the UN General Assembly, prompted by revelations that the U.S. government spied authorities and Brazilian companies. According to Bernardo, the event will have a "nongovernmental nature" and will require a call very wide. "Governments are invited to participate, but will be mostly a multisectoral meeting also involving representatives of civil society and the private sector," he said. The Foreign Minister said that the aim of the meeting is to hold a broad debate with all concerned sectors. "The idea is to build international governance that can above all ensure individual freedom and protecting human rights in order to use to the fullest the new media with the internet as its centerpiece," he said. Already the Minister of Science and Technology cited the Brazilian model participatory and democratic governance of the internet's Internet Steering Committee (CGI), created in 1995 and brings together 20 members. "This proposal of São Paulo meeting came a beautiful experience that Brazil has in the field of Internet governance. There are representatives from all major sectors of society. The Decalogue which guides their actions is already recognized worldwide. So Brazil has a leading position in this sector, "he said. The Minister Paulo Bernardo said that the proposed meeting is broader than the project of Marco Civil Internet being discussed in Congress.According to him, some assignments of Internet control should be maintained with the third sector. "What we found is that governments should act where it is necessary, as in cases of cyber crime, terrorism, espionage and pedophilia. Our March calendar has principles that can be replicated, but does not deal with international issues that still need to be addressed, "he added. 2013/11/19 Hartmut Richard Glaser > > > http://www.mc.gov.br/telecomunicacoes/noticias-telecomunicacoes/28991-sao- > paulo-vai-sediar-conferencia-internacional-sobre-governanca-na-internet. > > ================================= > > On 18/11/13 17:11, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Could someone provide a link to any press release from the Brazil govt's >> press conference this morning? >> >> And interested to know if anyone can say what the Brazil govt wants from >> the meeting? I'm remembering from Bali govt reps being quite insistent >> that the five principles President Rouseff presented to the UN general >> assembly being essential. Other issues? >> >> 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 > > -- >> 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 bluemanta at rediffmail.com Mon Nov 18 22:50:33 2013 From: bluemanta at rediffmail.com (Blue Manta Networks) Date: 19 Nov 2013 03:50:33 -0000 Subject: [governance] ITU has a deficient internet plan Message-ID: <20131119035033.2807.qmail@f5mail-224-149.rediffmail.com> http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/380343/itu-deficient-internet-plan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Tue Nov 19 02:41:31 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:11:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> Message-ID: The same questions, of whether it was a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing, were raised earlier, when the CIRP proposal was first made, and such questions seemed to be justified when the Minister of Communications subsequently repeatedly confirmed his commitment to multistakeholder models of governance, including at such high-profile events as the Baku IGF. In other words, clearly communication gaps exist within the Indian government. But to think that the same government would make the same mistakes on the same issue twice is rather tragic, and worrying, especially where the absence of consultation is concerned. Best, Anja On 19 November 2013 04:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > We need to be even more vigilant when other, nominally CS, individuals or > organizations have an agenda or propose solutions entirely at cross > purposes to our interests. > > --srs (iPad) > > > > > That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear > commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed > solutions. > > > > Anriette > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 19 02:45:33 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:15:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> Message-ID: <9A70336A-AA47-47F7-8E0C-2A75CED3E888@hserus.net> or the left hand knows what the right hand is doing and wants to do something else entirely? that's not quite unknown, you know. --srs (iPad) > On 19-Nov-2013, at 13:11, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > The same questions, of whether it was a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing, were raised earlier, when the CIRP proposal was first made, and such questions seemed to be justified when the Minister of Communications subsequently repeatedly confirmed his commitment to multistakeholder models of governance, including at such high-profile events as the Baku IGF. In other words, clearly communication gaps exist within the Indian government. But to think that the same government would make the same mistakes on the same issue twice is rather tragic, and worrying, especially where the absence of consultation is concerned. > > Best, > Anja > > > > >> On 19 November 2013 04:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> We need to be even more vigilant when other, nominally CS, individuals or organizations have an agenda or propose solutions entirely at cross purposes to our interests. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> > >> > That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed solutions. >> > >> > Anriette > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cafec3m at yahoo.fr Tue Nov 19 03:57:20 2013 From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:57:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] FW: WSIS+10 Zero Draft In-Reply-To: <032a01cee16f$87808790$968196b0$@gmail.com> References: <02f601cee16b$be3ea590$3abbf0b0$@gmail.com> <032a01cee16f$87808790$968196b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1384851440.8653.YahooMailNeo@web28702.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Hello, Thank you very much for this vital information. Besides, I'm not so surprised. To me and this is only my opinion, most systems of the United Nations has failed their responsibility in implementing the WSIS implementation by broad national and sub regional levels. More especially in most African countries, as is the case in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in many countries of Central Africa. It would be therefore that studies should be organized in this way to understand the real causes of this failure.    COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC courriel:cafec3m at yahoo.fr/repronticrdc3m at yahoo.fr/b.schombe at gmail.com téléphone: +243 998983491/+243813684512 Le Jeudi 14 novembre 2013 21h39, michael gurstein a écrit : My own particular involvement with Internet Governance issues began with theintertwining of thecommunity informatics approach and the various discussions associated with the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS-Geneva and Tunis)… As is its habit, the UN is now revisiting the Summit + 10 and is in the process of creating various types of documentation including importantly a review document on what has happened with respect to the original WSIS outcomes and where, as a global Summit, agreements should be entered into (at a meeting to be held in late 2014) to go on from here. I’m attaching the current draft output document(apologies for the highlighting… One significant difference between now and the original summits is that while the significance of the Internet has increased dramatically in the interim in all shapes and forms, the specific interest in the creation of an overall policy framework for the global deployment of the Internet has,in key areas (including most of those of interest from a community informatics perspective—the digital divide, digital inclusion, community empowerment through ICT use and so on) for the most part disappeared and particularly virtually all financial support forindependent/CS research and representation and even programming in these areas.(for an interesting blogpost looking at this in my own country Canada see http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/14/digital-divide-canada-poor_n_4269171.html?utm_hp_ref=canada What this means is that whereas the Civil Society intervention in the WSIS process was active and effective(including in support of a broad community informatics approach) there is virtually no counterpart developments in relation to this revisiting. (You will recall a flurry of notes etc. that I posted here on this subject at the beginning of this year.)  I haven’t yet had a chance to go through these documents in detail but a quick review suggests that,as I tried to say in my comments at the WSIS +10 meeting in February, it is not enough simply to review what has gone on before and to project it into the future it is also necessary to recognize where there has been failure and where past successes have led to new and significant issues which in turn need to be addressed. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/making-happytalk-in-paris-disneyland-and-the-wsis-10-review/ I’m not sure if anything much can be done on this at this stage but for those with an interest it is worth taking a look at these documents and for those with even more interest the overall process is described at http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/ 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Nov 19 05:14:56 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 21:14:56 +1100 Subject: [governance] MAG Nomcom Update - Criteria for Selection and Call for Candidate Information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: as a follow up to this – following from previous discussion on this subject, and approaches by some current MAG members seeking re-endorsement, the MAG will also be looking at endorsement of appropriate current MAG civil society members, in addition to suggesting new nominees. To this end all current civil society reps on MAG, in addition to those who have already put their names forward, have been contacted and invited to make submissions. Ian Peter (non voting nomcom chair) From: Ian Peter Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 8:44 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] MAG Nomcom Update - Criteria for Selection and Call for Candidate Information Hi everyone, The Nomcom for this years MAG selections is now underway on a very tight timeframe to select a slate of candidates. To date, we have the following nominees. If your name has been left out inadvertently, please let us know.To make sure that all prospective candidates have a chance to nominate, we will be extending the deadline for nominations until midnight UTC, Thursday November 21 1. Asif Kabani 2. Rudi Vansnick 3. Sonigitu Ekpe 4. Imran Ahmed Shah 5. Fouad Bajwa 6. Katim S Touray 7. Stuart Hamilton 8. Mawaki Chango 9. Nnenna Nwakanma 10. Mishi Choudary Please note that this is a list if of new candidates for MAG. The Nomcom is still determining how and if it will address questions of current membership and rotation and will advise in the near future. We have also determined our selection criteria as follows (circulated for the advice of IGC members and candidates) 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the IGC 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote participation 4. Knowledge of the UN system 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives held by civil society. 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute constructively to MAG deliberations 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including the IGC on issues and progress We will also be taking into account the need for gender and geographic balance. All candidates (or their nominators) are invited to contact us at nomcom-mag-2014 at lists.igcaucus.org; giving information to support their nomination, and addressing the selection criteria. As you may not be known to all members of the Nomcom, we encourage all candidates to submit information in support of their nomination. This information must be received by the deadline for nominations, i.e. midnight UTC, Thursday November 21. Nomcom members are: Kerry Brown Jefsey Morfin Deirdre Williams David Cake Shaila Mistry Ian Peter (non voting Chair) nomcom-mag-2014 at lists.igcaucus.org; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Nov 19 05:19:16 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:19:16 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] full title of BR conference In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <528B3B24.7020401@cafonso.ca> OK, you have certainly noted that "conference" has been replaced with "meeting". Do not ask me why... :) --c.a. On 11/16/2013 01:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi, > > I have confirmation that the full title of the BR event will be: > > Global Multistakeholder Conference On the Future of Internet Governance > Conferência Multissetorial Global Sobre o Futuro da Governança da Internet > Much better! ;) > > > > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Nov 19 04:50:39 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:50:39 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <5289A41A.7030801@apc.org> References: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> <5289A41A.7030801@apc.org> Message-ID: +1 Anriette They should wake up and smell the coffee. In the findings of WGEC questionnaire http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/WGEC_Summary_of_Responses.pdf, one thing that came out very clearly was to enable stakeholders from developing countries to participate on equal footing. Regards. ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh On 18 November 2013 05:22, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Not one person from civil society who has been active in IGF since the > WSIS process. > > Frankly, I am not at all surprised, but it is still extremely > disappointing and just hope this does not signal what we can expect from > the Brazil meeting. > > Moreover, developing country representation is extremely poor. > > Agree with Jeremy that we should act. > > Anriette > > > > > On 18/11/2013 04:06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 18/11/13 08:43, John Curran wrote: > >> A high-level panel has been organized to consider the issues > surrounding global Internet cooperation - > >> > >> "The Panel plans to release a high-level report in early 2014 for > public comment. The report will include principles for global Internet > cooperation, proposed frameworks for such cooperation and a roadmap for > future Internet governance challenges." > >> > >> > > > > > So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil > society representatives for the High Level Panel on the Future of Global > Internet Cooperation, which is what became of its 5th panel on Internet > evolution. Previously Fadi had claimed that the fate of the 5th panel > would be a decision for (what is now) the 1net dialogue, but evidently this > was just more bluff. > > > > The civil society representatives that ICANN helpful chose on our behalf > do not include the most expert names on Internet governance evolution. And > meanwhile ISOC is "representing" civil society in other processes such as > in the UNGA draft resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age. > The technical community, supported by its hundreds of millions of dollars > in revenue, is eating broader civil society alive. > > > > We are being completely left behind while we are dithering over > questions about whether to send the letter nominating our representatives > to the Brazil meeting, and whether our mailing list should be open or > closed. It is absolutely imperative now that we put internal process > issues on hold, and focus on urgent substantive issues. > > > > Will post something more practical about all this to the new (though now > already mis-named) "summit" list. > > > > > > -- > > > > *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 > > > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > - -- > - ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSiaQZAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewvJsH/2UN20/QDncUSO3Ksuzz7RbU > 9AxjK13KM0nxy+jmfJnzMQ1Vg9rpv3N3wN7DiLqkw4+V2PZl0qZ69tgIlpoCO2xG > wgLJ1vau7yADIDNXLGSucmFUw3+qcIW6tHxWAAuCx/6VYrJkyLUpab6E/JDS0u2k > +pQgkHTwbrpQCUCRWHhzRGIs3G17sMZF8rH7UNaKXk6Cw7yyCkm1imRMTPYrS4Fh > Vr1U/i49mEx+cV9ejhbMU/aLY/8VAOBzljt3j5RccwDEF0NmDlLkdPlIfRNSjX+H > 8Ye7m3rJgzcc+v4ZnmpGHVPUl7/KVwURNgSV5pMOg5aEi29J4UuDl30Fct5Vz9s= > =ViIp > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 02:44:46 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:14:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] MAG Nomcom Update - Criteria for Selection and Call for Candidate Information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <528B16EE.3070703@itforchange.net> Ian I suggest that you add to the criteria of selection - relationships with, and ability to reach out to, marginalised groups who have remained on the periphery of discussions and decisions about IG (which impacts every person in this world in fundamental ways, and re-distributes economic, social, cultural and political power, in a manner which can both further centralise or decentralise these various kinds of powers) thanks, parminder On Monday 18 November 2013 03:14 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > The Nomcom for this years MAG selections is now underway on a very > tight timeframe to select a slate of candidates. > > To date, we have the following nominees. If your name has been left > out inadvertently, please let us know.To make sure that all > prospective candidates have a chance to nominate, we will be extending > the deadline for nominations until midnight UTC, Thursday November 21 > > 1.Asif Kabani > > 2.Rudi Vansnick > > 3.Sonigitu Ekpe > > 4.Imran Ahmed Shah > > 5.Fouad Bajwa > > 6.Katim S Touray > > 7.Stuart Hamilton > > 8.Mawaki Chango > > 9.Nnenna Nwakanma > > 10.Mishi Choudary > > Please note that this is a list if of new candidates for MAG. The > Nomcom is still determining how and if it will address questions of > current membership and rotation and will advise in the near future. > > We have also determined our selection criteria as follows (circulated > for the advice of IGC members and candidates) > > 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC > 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including > the IGC > 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote > participation > 4. Knowledge of the UN system > 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and > perspectives > held by civil society. > 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to > contribute constructively to MAG deliberations > 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks > including the IGC on issues and progress > > We will also be taking into account the need for gender and geographic > balance. > > All candidates (or their nominators) are invited to contact us at > nomcom-mag-2014 at lists.igcaucus.org >; > giving information to support their nomination, and addressing the > selection criteria. As you may not be known to all members of the > Nomcom, we encourage all candidates to submit information in support > of their nomination. This information must be received by the deadline > for nominations, i.e. midnight UTC, Thursday November 21. > > Nomcom members are: > > Kerry Brown > > Jefsey Morfin > > Deirdre Williams > > David Cake > > Shaila Mistry > > Ian Peter (non voting Chair) > > nomcom-mag-2014 at lists.igcaucus.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 kichango at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 08:17:20 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:17:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees In-Reply-To: <437ADB07-DA2B-475D-919B-902CC57AB3AC@hserus.net> References: <3ys99ipevvk2gri3n5nh0ll4.1384738221887@email.android.com> <5289A81A.1060608@apc.org> <20131118103953.GA32503@hserus.net> <437ADB07-DA2B-475D-919B-902CC57AB3AC@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > It is absolutely certain that other civil society organizations will > definitely propose their own nominees (whether or not they're members of > that organization) who they feel will best represent civil society. > Not only that, but even if this space was the only one submitting a slate of nominees, not all of them will necessarily make it to the end as I understand UN at whatever level has the final say. So, on that at least, we should chill (unless there is a campaign I'm not aware of being waged to the attention of the IGF Secretariat.) Now, regarding the practices of other constituencies such as business, one needs to understand the difference there is between us. Business stakeholders have always operated that way, not just with the MAG but with other bodies such as ICANN and particularly the GNSO council, the same individual advocating for commercial interests for at least 10 years (if not more in the broader ICANN). Businesses have trade associations and even professional lobbyists they are willing to fund to do this kind of job for them. They don't care much about pluralism and representation *per se* as as much as they want to make sure their interests are taken care of by an able, well-connected, experienced, skillful individual who can get that done. It's like when they recruit for a job. If they find that individual available --among the handful number of people in their ranks who could fit the profile for the job-- they are happy to keep him or her for life, especially if there is only one spot to fill (otherwise there'd be room for some variations on the edges.) That's the model, as I see it. I'm not ruling anything out or in by saying this. If that's the model we want for CS, it is a conversation we may have, I think, either before people being nominated or after the selection process. My understanding so far has been that CS is so diverse and pluralistic that we are bit more touchy than business on representation and legitimacy (only heaven knows how many lines have been written here in contention about those two notions!) So my assumption would have been --and has been-- that a robust and diverse competition always is a good thing for the legitimacy (and political capital, so to speak) of whomever will come out of the process in the end as our selected candidates and be appointed on the MAG or wherever. So that a variety of people stepping forward and willing to expose themselves in the process, reinforcing its legitimacy by demonstrating its continuous openness and pluralism, would be a good thing to welcome and even to encourage. Instead what I have been seeing or reading sounds like a willingness to bully people out of the nomination list, suggesting that they would not be up to the task and therefore they shouldn't be nominated. I know nobody actually said that, but those are plausible implications and if only for that, I still find it regrettable. The models above are two startlingly different models. I get it that CS also needs to be effective, impactful. Is the businessfication of CS the only answer we've got? No mention of mentoring, no experience-sharing, or capacity-building (since we like that one so much)? Or capacity-building only works so well as to get people behind us professional CS, or when there are donors who want us to tell people what they want them to tell their governments to do? As I suggested, there might be ways to get the best of both worlds without presuming or suggesting that there are only about half-dozen people or so in this Caucus who can speak out in a context such as the MAG and can speak to TA para. 72. Cheers, mawaki > > What, who, why is not as material, Fouad - if we object to certain people > being on the MAG, then we invite counter objections to other long standing > civ soc members staying on the MAG which would rather not be raised, I hope > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 18-Nov-2013, at 16:53, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > > > Btw, even if all these people apply on their own from their > > organizations, they are equally valid and IGC comes in the equal > > balance of all civil society. For example, IGC can propose 20 people > > and 200 other CS orgs can also propose 20 people or more on their own > > an will be equally evaluated......so doesn't matter much does > > it....there is no template...nor was one created. > > > >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: > >> I guess you might be unaware of who, what, when, why....... > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > >> wrote: > >>> Fouad Bajwa [18/11/13 15:01 +0430]: > >>> > >>>> It is critical that some of our MAG colleagues are kept in there and > >>>> not rotated. I don't know if we noted it or not but there are private > >>>> sector MAG members continuously on the MAG and have never been rotated > >>>> off. This is one of the objections that should be raised loudly. > >>> > >>> > >>> Sorry but why? If civil society MAG people should be kept on and not > >>> rotated, why should private sector MAG members be treated differently? > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Regards. > >> -------------------------- > >> Fouad Bajwa > >> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor > >> My Blog: Internet's Governance: > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards. > > -------------------------- > > Fouad Bajwa > > ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor > > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 08:24:42 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:54:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees In-Reply-To: References: <3ys99ipevvk2gri3n5nh0ll4.1384738221887@email.android.com> <5289A81A.1060608@apc.org> <20131118103953.GA32503@hserus.net> <437ADB07-DA2B-475D-919B-902CC57AB3AC@hserus.net> Message-ID: <606F2065-4798-4537-86D7-61DF76EAE32F@hserus.net> You raise some of the most interesting questions I have seen on this specific topic for a long, long time. I would say that a middle path is that we pick someone who is policy focused, able and professional NGO type, so able to work on the issue practically full time, get funding to go to a series of conferences .. however, that individual must not have a political ax to grind or a set worldview shaped by that ax. We need a consensus builder and good communicator in the role, who morever has a background in UN and other intergovernmental and cross stakeholder group activities on cybersecurity. --srs (iPad) > On 19-Nov-2013, at 18:47, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > > >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> It is absolutely certain that other civil society organizations will definitely propose their own nominees (whether or not they're members of that organization) who they feel will best represent civil society. > > Not only that, but even if this space was the only one submitting a slate of nominees, not all of them will necessarily make it to the end as I understand UN at whatever level has the final say. So, on that at least, we should chill (unless there is a campaign I'm not aware of being waged to the attention of the IGF Secretariat.) > > Now, regarding the practices of other constituencies such as business, one needs to understand the difference there is between us. Business stakeholders have always operated that way, not just with the MAG but with other bodies such as ICANN and particularly the GNSO council, the same individual advocating for commercial interests for at least 10 years (if not more in the broader ICANN). Businesses have trade associations and even professional lobbyists they are willing to fund to do this kind of job for them. They don't care much about pluralism and representation *per se* as as much as they want to make sure their interests are taken care of by an able, well-connected, experienced, skillful individual who can get that done. It's like when they recruit for a job. If they find that individual available --among the handful number of people in their ranks who could fit the profile for the job-- they are happy to keep him or her for life, especially if there is only one spot to fill (otherwise there'd be room for some variations on the edges.) > > That's the model, as I see it. I'm not ruling anything out or in by saying this. If that's the model we want for CS, it is a conversation we may have, I think, either before people being nominated or after the selection process. My understanding so far has been that CS is so diverse and pluralistic that we are bit more touchy than business on representation and legitimacy (only heaven knows how many lines have been written here in contention about those two notions!) So my assumption would have been --and has been-- that a robust and diverse competition always is a good thing for the legitimacy (and political capital, so to speak) of whomever will come out of the process in the end as our selected candidates and be appointed on the MAG or wherever. So that a variety of people stepping forward and willing to expose themselves in the process, reinforcing its legitimacy by demonstrating its continuous openness and pluralism, would be a good thing to welcome and even to encourage. Instead what I have been seeing or reading sounds like a willingness to bully people out of the nomination list, suggesting that they would not be up to the task and therefore they shouldn't be nominated. I know nobody actually said that, but those are plausible implications and if only for that, I still find it regrettable. > > The models above are two startlingly different models. I get it that CS also needs to be effective, impactful. Is the businessfication of CS the only answer we've got? No mention of mentoring, no experience-sharing, or capacity-building (since we like that one so much)? Or capacity-building only works so well as to get people behind us professional CS, or when there are donors who want us to tell people what they want them to tell their governments to do? As I suggested, there might be ways to get the best of both worlds without presuming or suggesting that there are only about half-dozen people or so in this Caucus who can speak out in a context such as the MAG and can speak to TA para. 72. > > Cheers, > mawaki > >> >> What, who, why is not as material, Fouad - if we object to certain people being on the MAG, then we invite counter objections to other long standing civ soc members staying on the MAG which would rather not be raised, I hope >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> > On 18-Nov-2013, at 16:53, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> > >> > Btw, even if all these people apply on their own from their >> > organizations, they are equally valid and IGC comes in the equal >> > balance of all civil society. For example, IGC can propose 20 people >> > and 200 other CS orgs can also propose 20 people or more on their own >> > an will be equally evaluated......so doesn't matter much does >> > it....there is no template...nor was one created. >> > >> >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> I guess you might be unaware of who, what, when, why....... >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> >> wrote: >> >>> Fouad Bajwa [18/11/13 15:01 +0430]: >> >>> >> >>>> It is critical that some of our MAG colleagues are kept in there and >> >>>> not rotated. I don't know if we noted it or not but there are private >> >>>> sector MAG members continuously on the MAG and have never been rotated >> >>>> off. This is one of the objections that should be raised loudly. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Sorry but why? If civil society MAG people should be kept on and not >> >>> rotated, why should private sector MAG members be treated differently? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards. >> >> -------------------------- >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor >> >> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Regards. >> > -------------------------- >> > Fouad Bajwa >> > ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor >> > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 09:13:15 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:43:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> Message-ID: <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Anja > > Thank you for this. > > I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could not > get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed this > similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change proposal. > > Could it be differences between ministries? No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document with the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also my understanding that this position was developed and approved by an inter ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of all the relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest level clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to rest... While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good people of the world seem to live and breathe..... Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is just proposing to have done by including all countries of the world that OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers, Information and Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with only the richest countries of the world being involved. Is there anything wrong with it? If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current 'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes global policy and if the differences are on this point, lets discuss it.) Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am completely unable to understand how people and organisations that rather enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet policy making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model whenever it is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been taken from the devil himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start getting thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations ever protested against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE, and the such) making Internet policies (for the whole world)? Especially when these rich country clubs dont even include all countries, excluding all those countries whose only fault is that they arent rich? That would be something for civil society to be protesting about.... Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told, no, in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil society reps do not participate in actual decision making. They will be told that business and civil society vote or veto on substantive decision making on public policy issues will never never be accepted. Just forget it (and go read your political science books) ! Civil society persons know this will be the response, and they dont want to stand there looking a bit sheepish! So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people put this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy' to developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for new institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic deficit in the governance to the Internet, which is today a major instrument of re-distributing all kinds of power? I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be given the answer to the above question - why these double standards between developed countries and the developing ones? Why does the meaning of multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model presented by India takes the demonic colors of multilateralism... Any takers? Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of global IG... parminder > > I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, > the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully > cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications. > > Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific > matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works > will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are > just a but left out of the loop. > > But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, > including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder > participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly > put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip > service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable > also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their > speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by > multi-stakeholder IG. > > That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear > commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of > proposed solutions. > > Anriette > > > On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, >> I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India >> made to the WGEC (see below this message and here: >> http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/ >> ) >> >> Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal >> seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of >> Communications and Information Technology, in particular had become >> increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder models for >> Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the WGEC earlier >> this month, the Indian government again tabled a proposal for a >> multilateral Internet policy to be established under the UN, very >> similar to the earlier UN CIRP. >> >> Comments most welcome. >> >> Best, >> Anja >> >> >> Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take >> over the governance of the Internet? >> >> >> by Anja Kovacs >> >> /Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >> give the strong impression that this is indeed the case. / >> >> In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) >> , which met for the second >> time in Geneva last week, the Indian government recommended the >> following: >> >> The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a >> multilateral body for formulation of international >> Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should >> include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and >> international organisations in advisory capacity within their >> respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. >> Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on >> public policy issues associated with the coordination and >> management of critical Internet resources. >> >> Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within >> the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with >> India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee for >> Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus >> seems to have been revived. >> >> Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is >> problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse >> governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose >> dominance needs to be established at the expense of other >> stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other >> stakeholders will only be given an advisory role in Internet >> governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed to play the roles >> defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially >> where the role of civil society is concerned - are outmoded is >> something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s WGEC >> meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions >> of the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might >> affect its proposal. >> >> Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC >> only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian >> civil society representative. The latter took with this a position >> quite radically different from other Indian members of civil society >> active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of global civil >> society in this field, who believe that a multistakeholder model for >> Internet governance is the way forward. >> >> Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that >> there might at times be space for multilateralism within this >> multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group >> comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the >> right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new treaty, >> then from that point onwards, governments would take over as >> negotiating treaties is their job. >> >> However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones >> currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a >> multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, >> including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go >> forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of >> government dominance in the policy process, irrespective of the >> problem at hand, and thus requires agreement only among governments. >> This not only means that inputs by other stakeholders need not >> necessarily be given due consideration, it also leaves the Internet >> policy making process much more vulnerable to the vagaries of global >> geopolitics. >> >> The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also >> for developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues >> associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet >> resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the >> coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies >> overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without >> their flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To >> think that principles that should govern the work of these bodies can >> be formulated or effectively applied without a central involvement of >> all stakeholders already involved in these groups (stakeholders who >> often have, it should be said, conflicting views about the way >> forward) is obviously deeply flawed. >> >> The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on >> how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained >> in the Tunis Agenda. >> >> India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body >> that would privilege governments in the making of international >> Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic >> consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been >> established by the government precisely for such purposes in August >> of this year. >> >> For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a >> surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of >> Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed >> over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance of >> multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and his own >> commitment to this model. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Nov 19 06:41:02 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 12:41:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: <9A70336A-AA47-47F7-8E0C-2A75CED3E888@hserus.net> References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <9A70336A-AA47-47F7-8E0C-2A75CED3E888@hserus.net> Message-ID: On 08:45 19/11/2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian said: >or the left hand knows what the right hand is doing and wants to do >something else entirely? Would there not be a politically smart brain "mani"pulating a "mani"festly uncordinated ad manus in manus "many"pulation? >that's not quite unknown, you know. e.g. I* - Brazil? jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 19 09:23:31 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:53:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: <9A70336A-AA47-47F7-8E0C-2A75CED3E888@hserus.net> References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <9A70336A-AA47-47F7-8E0C-2A75CED3E888@hserus.net> Message-ID: that makes very little sense so I will not attempt to parse it. as for brazil, they appear to be following a consistent policy so far. --srs (iPad) > On 19-Nov-2013, at 17:11, JFC Morfin wrote: > > On 08:45 19/11/2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian said: >> or the left hand knows what the right hand is doing and wants to do something else entirely? > > Would there not be a politically smart brain "mani"pulating a "mani"festly uncordinated ad manus in manus "many"pulation? > >> that's not quite unknown, you know. > > e.g. I* - Brazil? > jfc > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Nov 19 09:35:47 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 20:05:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] civil society role in Brazil meeting Message-ID: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> Dear All There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just be taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the Brazil meeting through the 1net structure.... And we know that there was overwhelming feeling among civil society that this should not be allowed, and we should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out of our paralysis? Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently present our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the 1net or whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we have as our liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent the time for that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it a bit later). The following is a quick text suggestion... We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased to note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a ............. (put the official name of the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful conclusion. We have chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to the Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering committee that may be set up. .... ...... ...... ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the proposed multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet..... We will route our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through these reps... Signed (ends) 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 toml at communisphere.com Tue Nov 19 09:47:40 2013 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:47:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees In-Reply-To: <606F2065-4798-4537-86D7-61DF76EAE32F@hserus.net> References: <3ys99ipevvk2gri3n5nh0ll4.1384738221887@email.android.com> <5289A81A.1060608@apc.org> <20131118103953.GA32503@hserus.net> <437ADB07-DA2B-475D-919B-902CC57AB3AC@hserus.net> <606F2065-4798-4537-86D7-61DF76EAE32F@hserus.net> Message-ID: <528B7A0C.2020602@communisphere.com> As the former chair of a MAG NomCom, I read with delight the detailed description of the ideal candidate: 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the IGC 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote participation 4. Knowledge of the UN system 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives held by civil society. 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute constructively to MAG deliberations 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including the IGC on issues and progress My only addition would be that the NomCom also be cognizant of gender and geographic balance. More broadly, commenting on the most enlightening Mawaki / Suresh conversation, I'd suggest that the more we highlight and detail the sophisticated criteria and vetting process carried on by the IGC's NomCom, the more likely IGC nominees are to be accepted. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt On 11/19/2013 8:24 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > You raise some of the most interesting questions I have seen on this > specific topic for a long, long time. > > I would say that a middle path is that we pick someone who is policy > focused, able and professional NGO type, so able to work on the issue > practically full time, get funding to go to a series of conferences .. > however, that individual must not have a political ax to grind or a > set worldview shaped by that ax. > > We need a consensus builder and good communicator in the role, who > morever has a background in UN and other intergovernmental and cross > stakeholder group activities on cybersecurity. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 19-Nov-2013, at 18:47, Mawaki Chango > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> > wrote: >> >> It is absolutely certain that other civil society organizations >> will definitely propose their own nominees (whether or not >> they're members of that organization) who they feel will best >> represent civil society. >> >> >> Not only that, but even if this space was the only one submitting a >> slate of nominees, not all of them will necessarily make it to the >> end as I understand UN at whatever level has the final say. So, on >> that at least, we should chill (unless there is a campaign I'm not >> aware of being waged to the attention of the IGF Secretariat.) >> >> Now, regarding the practices of other constituencies such as >> business, one needs to understand the difference there is between us. >> Business stakeholders have always operated that way, not just with >> the MAG but with other bodies such as ICANN and particularly the GNSO >> council, the same individual advocating for commercial interests for >> at least 10 years (if not more in the broader ICANN). Businesses have >> trade associations and even professional lobbyists they are willing >> to fund to do this kind of job for them. They don't care much about >> pluralism and representation *per se* as as much as they want to make >> sure their interests are taken care of by an able, well-connected, >> experienced, skillful individual who can get that done. It's like >> when they recruit for a job. If they find that individual available >> --among the handful number of people in their ranks who could fit the >> profile for the job-- they are happy to keep him or her for life, >> especially if there is only one spot to fill (otherwise there'd be >> room for some variations on the edges.) >> >> That's the model, as I see it. I'm not ruling anything out or in by >> saying this. If that's the model we want for CS, it is a conversation >> we may have, I think, either before people being nominated or after >> the selection process. My understanding so far has been that CS is so >> diverse and pluralistic that we are bit more touchy than business on >> representation and legitimacy (only heaven knows how many lines have >> been written here in contention about those two notions!) So my >> assumption would have been --and has been-- that a robust and diverse >> competition always is a good thing for the legitimacy (and political >> capital, so to speak) of whomever will come out of the process in the >> end as our selected candidates and be appointed on the MAG or >> wherever. So that a variety of people stepping forward and willing to >> expose themselves in the process, reinforcing its legitimacy by >> demonstrating its continuous openness and pluralism, would be a good >> thing to welcome and even to encourage. Instead what I have been >> seeing or reading sounds like a willingness to bully people out of >> the nomination list, suggesting that they would not be up to the task >> and therefore they shouldn't be nominated. I know nobody actually >> said that, but those are plausible implications and if only for that, >> I still find it regrettable. >> >> The models above are two startlingly different models. I get it that >> CS also needs to be effective, impactful. Is the businessfication of >> CS the only answer we've got? No mention of mentoring, no >> experience-sharing, or capacity-building (since we like that one so >> much)? Or capacity-building only works so well as to get people >> behind us professional CS, or when there are donors who want us to >> tell people what they want them to tell their governments to do? As I >> suggested, there might be ways to get the best of both worlds without >> presuming or suggesting that there are only about half-dozen people >> or so in this Caucus who can speak out in a context such as the MAG >> and can speak to TA para. 72. >> >> Cheers, >> mawaki >> >> >> What, who, why is not as material, Fouad - if we object to >> certain people being on the MAG, then we invite counter >> objections to other long standing civ soc members staying on the >> MAG which would rather not be raised, I hope >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> > On 18-Nov-2013, at 16:53, Fouad Bajwa > > wrote: >> > >> > Btw, even if all these people apply on their own from their >> > organizations, they are equally valid and IGC comes in the equal >> > balance of all civil society. For example, IGC can propose 20 >> people >> > and 200 other CS orgs can also propose 20 people or more on >> their own >> > an will be equally evaluated......so doesn't matter much does >> > it....there is no template...nor was one created. >> > >> >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Fouad Bajwa >> > wrote: >> >> I guess you might be unaware of who, what, when, why....... >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> >> > wrote: >> >>> Fouad Bajwa [18/11/13 15:01 +0430]: >> >>> >> >>>> It is critical that some of our MAG colleagues are kept in >> there and >> >>>> not rotated. I don't know if we noted it or not but there >> are private >> >>>> sector MAG members continuously on the MAG and have never >> been rotated >> >>>> off. This is one of the objections that should be raised loudly. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Sorry but why? If civil society MAG people should be kept on >> and not >> >>> rotated, why should private sector MAG members be treated >> differently? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards. >> >> -------------------------- >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor >> >> My Blog: Internet's Governance: >> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Regards. >> > -------------------------- >> > Fouad Bajwa >> > ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor >> > My Blog: Internet's Governance: >> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 10:33:20 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:33:20 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS are also arguing for transparency, openness and participation for civil society in the Brazil process. In a similar way that we raised this in the IGF during meetings with the Brazilian government in the iStart meeting and in other spaces, we are doing it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board members), with governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the present situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve the right to change opinion) is: - It is not either/or. Both things should be done together: populate and participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves in our own spaces, sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual organizations. It is not clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but there is a possibility it will be important, so we should not be out of it. We also need a channel to exchange with other groups and this could be the channel - We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is representative and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself - 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What people are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For communication purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should reinforce that these people are our liaisons for the moment until 1 net exists and until (and if) we feel comfortable with it. - Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings Marília On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder wrote: > Dear All > > There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just be > taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the Brazil > meeting through the 1net structure.... And we know that there was > overwhelming feeling among civil society that this should not be allowed, > and we should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG > kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out > of our paralysis? > > Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and independent > liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently present our liasons > directly accountable to us and not through the 1net or whatever...And just > forward the four Brazilain names we have as our liasons... We do not have > to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent the time for that. (and if > some people insist, we can always do it a bit later). The following is a > quick text suggestion... > > We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased to > note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a ............. (put the > official name of the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of > Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful conclusion. We > have chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to the > Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering committee that may > be set up. > > .... > ...... > > ...... > ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons > > Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal > presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the proposed > multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet..... We will route > our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through these reps... > > Signed > > > (ends) > > parminder > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 10:38:56 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:38:56 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Just to clarify further: I am not against the letter Parminder suggested, just think we could calibrate the language not to dismiss 1net as an option for participation. M On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS are also > arguing for transparency, openness and participation for civil society in > the Brazil process. In a similar way that we raised this in the IGF during > meetings with the Brazilian government in the iStart meeting and in other > spaces, we are doing it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board > members), with governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the > present situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve the right to > change opinion) is: > > - It is not either/or. Both things should be done together: populate and > participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves in our own spaces, > sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual organizations. It is not > clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but there is a possibility it will be > important, so we should not be out of it. We also need a channel to > exchange with other groups and this could be the channel > > - We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is > representative and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself > > - 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What people > are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For communication > purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should reinforce that these people > are our liaisons for the moment until 1 net exists and until (and if) we > feel comfortable with it. > > - Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings > > Marília > > > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder wrote: > >> Dear All >> >> There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just be >> taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the Brazil >> meeting through the 1net structure.... And we know that there was >> overwhelming feeling among civil society that this should not be allowed, >> and we should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG >> kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out >> of our paralysis? >> >> Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and >> independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently present >> our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the 1net or >> whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we have as our >> liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent >> the time for that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it a bit >> later). The following is a quick text suggestion... >> >> We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased to >> note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a ............. (put the >> official name of the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of >> Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful conclusion. We >> have chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to the >> Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering committee that may >> be set up. >> >> .... >> ...... >> >> ...... >> ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons >> >> Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal >> presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the proposed >> multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet..... We will >> route our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through these reps... >> >> Signed >> >> >> (ends) >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 10:47:56 2013 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:47:56 -0200 Subject: [governance] ITU has a deficient internet plan In-Reply-To: <20131119035033.2807.qmail@f5mail-224-149.rediffmail.com> References: <20131119035033.2807.qmail@f5mail-224-149.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Any discussion on ITU's "Internet Plan" gives ITU some status in Internet, because it says ITU and Internet on the same line. I would rather like to see the ITU having No Internet Plans, and nothing to do with Internet :) Sivasubramanian M India. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Blue Manta Networks < bluemanta at rediffmail.com> wrote: > > http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/380343/itu-deficient-internet-plan > > > > > Get your own *FREE* website, *FREE* domain & *FREE* mobile app with > Company email. > *Know More >* > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India +91 99524 03099 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 10:50:19 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 07:50:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Agree with Marilia Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 19, 2013, at 7:38 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Just to clarify further: I am not against the letter Parminder suggested, just think we could calibrate the language not to dismiss 1net as an option for participation. > M > > >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> Hi Parminder, >> >> I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS are also arguing for transparency, openness and participation for civil society in the Brazil process. In a similar way that we raised this in the IGF during meetings with the Brazilian government in the iStart meeting and in other spaces, we are doing it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board members), with governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the present situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve the right to change opinion) is: >> >> - It is not either/or. Both things should be done together: populate and participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves in our own spaces, sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual organizations. It is not clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but there is a possibility it will be important, so we should not be out of it. We also need a channel to exchange with other groups and this could be the channel >> >> - We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is representative and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself >> >> - 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What people are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For communication purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should reinforce that these people are our liaisons for the moment until 1 net exists and until (and if) we feel comfortable with it. >> >> - Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings >> >> Marília >> >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder wrote: >>> Dear All >>> >>> There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just be taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the Brazil meeting through the 1net structure.... And we know that there was overwhelming feeling among civil society that this should not be allowed, and we should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out of our paralysis? >>> >>> Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently present our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the 1net or whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we have as our liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent the time for that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it a bit later). The following is a quick text suggestion... >>> >>> We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased to note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a ............. (put the official name of the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful conclusion. We have chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to the Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering committee that may be set up. >>> >>> .... >>> ...... >>> >>> ...... >>> ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons >>> >>> Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the proposed multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet..... We will route our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through these reps... >>> >>> Signed >>> >>> (ends) >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> Marília Maciel >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu > > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mshears at cdt.org Tue Nov 19 10:52:53 2013 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 15:52:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <528B8955.3000906@cdt.org> +1 as well On 19/11/2013 15:50, Carolina wrote: > Agree with Marilia > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 19, 2013, at 7:38 AM, Marilia Maciel > wrote: > >> Just to clarify further: I am not against the letter Parminder >> suggested, just think we could calibrate the language not to dismiss >> 1net as an option for participation. >> M >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Marilia Maciel >> > wrote: >> >> Hi Parminder, >> >> I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS >> are also arguing for transparency, openness and participation for >> civil society in the Brazil process. In a similar way that we >> raised this in the IGF during meetings with the Brazilian >> government in the iStart meeting and in other spaces, we are >> doing it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board members), >> with governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the >> present situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve >> the right to change opinion) is: >> >> - It is not either/or. Both things should be done together: >> populate and participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves >> in our own spaces, sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual >> organizations. It is not clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but >> there is a possibility it will be important, so we should not be >> out of it. We also need a channel to exchange with other groups >> and this could be the channel >> >> - We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is >> representative and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself >> >> - 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What >> people are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For >> communication purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should >> reinforce that these people are our liaisons for the moment until >> 1 net exists and until (and if) we feel comfortable with it. >> >> - Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings >> >> Marília >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder >> > wrote: >> >> Dear All >> >> There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov >> may just be taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov >> participation in the Brazil meeting through the 1net >> structure.... And we know that there was overwhelming feeling >> among civil society that this should not be allowed, and we >> should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the >> active IG kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we >> know willing to come out of our paralysis? >> >> Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct >> and independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to >> independently present our liasons directly accountable to us >> and not through the 1net or whatever...And just forward the >> four Brazilain names we have as our liasons... We do not have >> to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent the time for >> that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it a bit >> later). The following is a quick text suggestion... >> >> We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups >> are pleased to note that Brazil has made a formal >> announcement of a ............. (put the official name of >> the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government >> of Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a >> successful conclusion. We have chosen the below >> mentioned four persons to be our liason to the Brazilian >> government and also to be put on any steering committee >> that may be set up. >> >> .... >> ...... >> >> ...... >> ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons >> >> Please include our above representatives in all meetings, >> formal presentations etc that will henceforth take place >> regarding the proposed multistakeholder meeting on the >> future of the Internet..... We will route our inputs to >> the organisation of this meeting through these reps... >> >> Signed >> >> >> (ends) >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Matthew Shears Director and Representative Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org +44 (0) 771 247 2987 Skype: mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 10:54:29 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 15:54:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I guess not everybody has seen the report message sent by Adiel on the 1net list and maybe I should forward it here after this for your direct consideration. There are a number of committees being formed, and 1net has clearly recognized the place of CS in those committee and the CS right to pursue other avenues of engagement with Brazilian counterparts, including government. So nobody forces us to either be there or have our own channel. We can do both, and I would urge this group to show a spirit of cooperative with 1net. Rgds, mc On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Just to clarify further: I am not against the letter Parminder suggested, > just think we could calibrate the language not to dismiss 1net as an option > for participation. > M > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Hi Parminder, >> >> I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS are also >> arguing for transparency, openness and participation for civil society in >> the Brazil process. In a similar way that we raised this in the IGF during >> meetings with the Brazilian government in the iStart meeting and in other >> spaces, we are doing it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board >> members), with governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the >> present situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve the right to >> change opinion) is: >> >> - It is not either/or. Both things should be done together: populate and >> participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves in our own spaces, >> sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual organizations. It is not >> clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but there is a possibility it will be >> important, so we should not be out of it. We also need a channel to >> exchange with other groups and this could be the channel >> >> - We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is >> representative and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself >> >> - 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What people >> are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For communication >> purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should reinforce that these people >> are our liaisons for the moment until 1 net exists and until (and if) we >> feel comfortable with it. >> >> - Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings >> >> Marília >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> Dear All >>> >>> There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just be >>> taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the Brazil >>> meeting through the 1net structure.... And we know that there was >>> overwhelming feeling among civil society that this should not be allowed, >>> and we should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG >>> kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out >>> of our paralysis? >>> >>> Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and >>> independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently present >>> our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the 1net or >>> whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we have as our >>> liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent >>> the time for that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it a bit >>> later). The following is a quick text suggestion... >>> >>> We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased to >>> note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a ............. (put the >>> official name of the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of >>> Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful conclusion. We >>> have chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to the >>> Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering committee that may >>> be set up. >>> >>> .... >>> ...... >>> >>> ...... >>> ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons >>> >>> Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal >>> presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the proposed >>> multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet..... We will >>> route our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through these reps... >>> >>> Signed >>> >>> >>> (ends) >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 10:57:42 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 15:57:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [I-coordination] Brazil Meeting Planning In-Reply-To: <9581032E-B850-4842-98A4-53F02723B1B9@afrinic.net> References: <9581032E-B850-4842-98A4-53F02723B1B9@afrinic.net> Message-ID: fyi my understanding is that we have, preferably, about one week to identify reps or liaisons or whatever we'd like to call them for a number of these committees. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adiel Akplogan Date: Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:43 AM Subject: [I-coordination] Brazil Meeting Planning To: "I-coordination at nro.net" Dear 1net participants Following a meeting held this week between Brazil and some I* representatives, we have got some further details that I would like to share with you on the meeting, specifically on its planing and the need for us (1net initiative) to contribute by appointing representatives to the committees being setup to drive its preparation. The information below will be used to update the Meeting concept paper circulated on this list earlier (which can now be published on our web site as well) It is clear that the tight timelines for this meeting will require expedient processes, and would ask that everyone work as best they can within the constraints we have been given. While this is not ideal from a planning perspective, it is better for us to still strive to work together as a single community to get something positive out of the meeting in Brazil. An extract of the salient points of the meeting is reproduced further down. As immediate action from this group we will need: 1. Representatives from the 1net initiative who can be in Sao Paolo on 25 November to attend part of the CGI meeting along with Virgilio Almeida where CGI support to the Brazil meeting will be discussed. We are also invited to be represented the next day (26 November) at the press conference where Brazil will announce additional details about the meeting (most likely some of the information in this planning document]; If you are interested and can attend either of these days, please notify me ( cel at afrinic.net); we do not know at this time how many or process for selection of attendees. 2. The meeting secretariat apparently will have some 1net representatives; again, if you are interested, please identify yourself. We might need to wait to see how CGI (presuming they accept being the meeting secretariat) wishes to handle selection of these representatives. 3. There are 4 important meeting planning committees; these identify some specific counts of reps from various communities. while the I* group can figure out how to handle the Internet technical community representation, we will need civil society, business and academia to also quickly nominate representatives to these committees. While We do not yet have timing regarding how long to appoint representatives, but given the meeting timelines it would be best if these were completed by the end of this month. We count on your cooperation and support throughout this process. Thank you. ==================== Information gathered from the meeting ========================== Name: Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance Date/Location: Sao Paolo, Brazil on April 23/24, 2014. Brazil is forming a global multistakeholder steering committee to organize the event. The committee will include representatives from the Brazilian CGI, the Brazilian government, and representatives of 1net (the global dialog on the evolution of multistakeholder internet governance). 1net representatives will include members of the global technical, academic, civil society, and business communities. ** Purpose. The meeting will aim to produce universal internet principles and an institutional framework for multistakeholder internet governance. The framework will include a roadmap to evolve and globalize current institutions, and new mechanisms to address the emerging internet governance topics. The conference will not include any discussion or activity to create solutions for specific topics such as security, privacy, surveillance, etc. - Success is a final joint declaration of internet principles and an institutional framework for multistakeholder internet governance. The declaration should aim to be concrete/practical, linked to prior/current internet governance initiatives, and hopefully include some next steps. - The conference is not intend to discuss or engage in creating solutions for specific topics such as security, privacy, surveillance, etc. - Any party/stakeholder may submit proposals to the conference. Proposed deadline for submittal of proposals is set as March 1, 2014. Giving a 60 day period for community consultation and proposal consolidation prior to the conference in late April/early May 2014. - One of several input sources to this conference will be the high-level panel that ICANN will introduce shortly in partnership with The University of Southern California / Annenberg Foundation and the World Economic Forum. The panel aims to produce its final document by end of February with proposed Internet principles and an institutional framework. Virgilio Almeida will act as the chair of the Brazilian side throughout the preparatory processes. CGI will be asked to serve in an important operational and strategic role. Virgilio will seek the support of all the CGI stakeholders at their regularly scheduled meeting of November 25 in Sao Paolo. He asks that /1net community leaders to attend part of that meeting, to lend their global support of the Brazil conference. Planning & Organisation: 4 committees will be formed to ensure the success of the meeting (see details below). The four committees will be supported/coordinated by a common secretariat to manage the work of the committees and coordinate communications activities including a conference web site. The secretariat is likely to be housed at CGI (pending approval on the 25th); the secretariat will also include representation from /1net (the global Internet community) to ensure constant alignment. ++ Committee No.1: Multistakeholder High-Level Committee. This is the committee that will set the high-level political tone and objectives of the conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success. This committee will include 8 high level governmental representatives (ministerial level), and 8 /1net Internet community representatives (senior executive level). The 8 governmental reps. will include Brazil and other co-hosting governments to be selected by Brazil. We discussed Germany, India, Ghana, Turkey, and one of the "five-eyes" (possibly Australia or the UK). But this selection is completely up to Brazil. The 8 /1net Internet community members will be selected by the emerging /1net coordination committee. They will be selected to include 2 from industry/business; 2 from civil society; 2 from technical organizations; 1from academia; and 1 from NGO. ++ Committee No.2: Council of Governmental advisors. Participation in this committee will be managed by Ambassador Benedicto (Foreign affairs) to include any other governmental representatives who wish to provide input/advice to Committee No.1. This ensures inclusivity and openness to broad governmental engagement and eventual participation at the conference. ++ Committee No.3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee. This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received by March 1 into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre-during-post conference. This committee will include 6 governmental representatives, and 6 /1net community representatives. The 6 governmental reps. will include Brazil, CGI, and other government representatives to be selected by Brazil. We discussed the EU and South Korea as good possibilities. But this selection is completely up to Brazil. The 6 /1net community members will be selected by the emerging /1net coordination committee. They will be selected to include 2 from industry/business; 2 from civil society; 2 from technical organizations. ++ Committee No.4: Logistics/Organizing Committee. This is the team that will oversee meeting management, venue, translation, activities, travel visa support, etc. This committee will be staffed and managed by CGI (again pending their approval at their 25th meeting). The global community may be asked for support as needed. ** Finances. Brazil offered to cover all meeting expenses (thank you Brazil!). We then discussed that /1net community may organize an independent effort to support parties from developing countries who may need financial support to attend the meeting. ** Launch. The conference global launch will be at a press conference to held in Sao Paolo at the CGI office on the morning of Tuesday November 26. The press conference will include members of the Brazilian community (government and CGI), /1net community leaders, and hopefully some co-host governments to ensure broad/global representation. ------ - a. _______________________________________________ I-coordination mailing list I-coordination at nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Nov 19 10:58:56 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 21:28:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: <7AE30DCD-BB19-47EE-BD41-BE19F71CD01D@savitr.info> References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> <7AE30DCD-BB19-47EE-BD41-BE19F71CD01D@savitr.info> Message-ID: On 19-Nov-2013, at 21:27, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Oh, but that'd probably defeat the whole raison d'etre of that letter :) "technical community is not civil society, shut them out" etc etc. I say that while echoing multiple calls for transparency. --srs (iPad) > On 19-Nov-2013, at 21:08, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> Just to clarify further: I am not against the letter Parminder suggested, just think we could calibrate the language not to dismiss 1net as an option for participation. >> M >> >> >>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS are also arguing for transparency, openness and participation for civil society in the Brazil process. In a similar way that we raised this in the IGF during meetings with the Brazilian government in the iStart meeting and in other spaces, we are doing it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board members), with governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the present situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve the right to change opinion) is: >>> >>> - It is not either/or. Both things should be done together: populate and participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves in our own spaces, sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual organizations. It is not clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but there is a possibility it will be important, so we should not be out of it. We also need a channel to exchange with other groups and this could be the channel >>> >>> - We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is representative and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself >>> >>> - 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What people are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For communication purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should reinforce that these people are our liaisons for the moment until 1 net exists and until (and if) we feel comfortable with it. >>> >>> - Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> Dear All >>>> >>>> There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just be taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the Brazil meeting through the 1net structure.... And we know that there was overwhelming feeling among civil society that this should not be allowed, and we should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out of our paralysis? >>>> >>>> Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently present our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the 1net or whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we have as our liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent the time for that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it a bit later). The following is a quick text suggestion... >>>> >>>> We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased to note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a ............. (put the official name of the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful conclusion. We have chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to the Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering committee that may be set up. >>>> >>>> .... >>>> ...... >>>> >>>> ...... >>>> ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons >>>> >>>> Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the proposed multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet..... We will route our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through these reps... >>>> >>>> Signed >>>> >>>> (ends) >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Marília Maciel >>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Researcher and Coordinator >>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate >>> www.diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Marília Maciel >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 11:39:51 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:39:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> <7AE30DCD-BB19-47EE-BD41-BE19F71CD01D@savitr.info> Message-ID: Suresh - It is my understanding the 1net initiative is about catalyzing "a multi-stakeholder movement to develop, through an open processes, a framework for evolving, broadening and strengthening Internet Governance/Cooperation arrangements, and to advocate for its adoption." That's likely to last some number of years (i.e. longer then the Brazil meeting) and (in my opinion), it cannot be the case that participating in 1net closes opportunity for expression or participation elsewhere. CS should participate in 1net if believes that the it will advance CS's goals and mission. CS should reach out and seek representation and participation in other forums as it feels appropriate. If the purpose of the letter is "technical community is not civil society, shut them out", then that does not seem particularly productive to me (but it's still your right to do so.) If the purpose of a letter is to note that 1net is a fledging organization that at this point cannot reasonably be expected to represent CS with respect to the Brazil meeting planning activities and that you'd prefer to make CS appointments directly, then it's worth making that point. You could even cc the 1net Steering Committee (if one should ever come into being); they may even concur with the observation. /John Disclaimer: Very much my own views, and solely as one Internet citizen on this mailing list. On Nov 19, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On 19-Nov-2013, at 21:27, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Oh, but that'd probably defeat the whole raison d'etre of that letter :) > > "technical community is not civil society, shut them out" etc etc. > > I say that while echoing multiple calls for transparency. > > --srs (iPad) > >> On 19-Nov-2013, at 21:08, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >>> Just to clarify further: I am not against the letter Parminder suggested, just think we could calibrate the language not to dismiss 1net as an option for participation. >>> M >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS are also arguing for transparency, openness and participation for civil society in the Brazil process. In a similar way that we raised this in the IGF during meetings with the Brazilian government in the iStart meeting and in other spaces, we are doing it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board members), with governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the present situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve the right to change opinion) is: >>> >>> - It is not either/or. Both things should be done together: populate and participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves in our own spaces, sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual organizations. It is not clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but there is a possibility it will be important, so we should not be out of it. We also need a channel to exchange with other groups and this could be the channel >>> >>> - We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is representative and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself >>> >>> - 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What people are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For communication purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should reinforce that these people are our liaisons for the moment until 1 net exists and until (and if) we feel comfortable with it. >>> >>> - Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder wrote: >>> Dear All >>> >>> There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just be taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the Brazil meeting through the 1net structure.... And we know that there was overwhelming feeling among civil society that this should not be allowed, and we should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out of our paralysis? >>> >>> Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently present our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the 1net or whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we have as our liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent the time for that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it a bit later). The following is a quick text suggestion... >>> >>> We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased to note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a ............. (put the official name of the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful conclusion. We have chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to the Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering committee that may be set up. >>> >>> .... >>> ...... >>> >>> ...... >>> ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons >>> >>> Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the proposed multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet..... We will route our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through these reps... >>> >>> Signed >>> >>> (ends) >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Marília Maciel >>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Researcher and Coordinator >>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate >>> www.diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Marília Maciel >>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Researcher and Coordinator >>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate >>> www.diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 12:38:56 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 23:08:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> <7AE30DCD-BB19-47EE-BD41-BE19F71CD01D@savitr.info> Message-ID: <306EF8B1-93BE-4953-9F26-3A8348767104@hserus.net> Not my letter, at all. The people involved and organizations involved in 1net are familiar enough. The engagement with other parts of civil society is what needs to be worked out I guess. --srs (iPad) > On 19-Nov-2013, at 22:09, John Curran wrote: > > Suresh - > > It is my understanding the 1net initiative is about catalyzing "a multi-stakeholder movement to > develop, through an open processes, a framework for evolving, broadening and strengthening > Internet Governance/Cooperation arrangements, and to advocate for its adoption." That's > likely to last some number of years (i.e. longer then the Brazil meeting) and (in my opinion), it > cannot be the case that participating in 1net closes opportunity for expression or participation > elsewhere. > > CS should participate in 1net if believes that the it will advance CS's goals and mission. > > CS should reach out and seek representation and participation in other forums as it feels > appropriate. If the purpose of the letter is "technical community is not civil society, shut > them out", then that does not seem particularly productive to me (but it's still your right to > do so.) If the purpose of a letter is to note that 1net is a fledging organization that at this > point cannot reasonably be expected to represent CS with respect to the Brazil meeting > planning activities and that you'd prefer to make CS appointments directly, then it's worth > making that point. You could even cc the 1net Steering Committee (if one should ever > come into being); they may even concur with the observation. > > /John > > Disclaimer: Very much my own views, and solely as one Internet citizen on this mailing list. > > >> On Nov 19, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> On 19-Nov-2013, at 21:27, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> Oh, but that'd probably defeat the whole raison d'etre of that letter :) >> >> "technical community is not civil society, shut them out" etc etc. >> >> I say that while echoing multiple calls for transparency. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >>>> On 19-Nov-2013, at 21:08, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>> >>>> Just to clarify further: I am not against the letter Parminder suggested, just think we could calibrate the language not to dismiss 1net as an option for participation. >>>> M >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>>> Hi Parminder, >>>>> >>>>> I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS are also arguing for transparency, openness and participation for civil society in the Brazil process. In a similar way that we raised this in the IGF during meetings with the Brazilian government in the iStart meeting and in other spaces, we are doing it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board members), with governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the present situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve the right to change opinion) is: >>>>> >>>>> - It is not either/or. Both things should be done together: populate and participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves in our own spaces, sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual organizations. It is not clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but there is a possibility it will be important, so we should not be out of it. We also need a channel to exchange with other groups and this could be the channel >>>>> >>>>> - We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is representative and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself >>>>> >>>>> - 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What people are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For communication purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should reinforce that these people are our liaisons for the moment until 1 net exists and until (and if) we feel comfortable with it. >>>>> >>>>> - Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings >>>>> >>>>> Marília >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder wrote: >>>>>> Dear All >>>>>> >>>>>> There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just be taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the Brazil meeting through the 1net structure.... And we know that there was overwhelming feeling among civil society that this should not be allowed, and we should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out of our paralysis? >>>>>> >>>>>> Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently present our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the 1net or whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we have as our liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent the time for that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it a bit later). The following is a quick text suggestion... >>>>>> >>>>>> We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased to note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a ............. (put the official name of the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful conclusion. We have chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to the Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering committee that may be set up. >>>>>> >>>>>> .... >>>>>> ...... >>>>>> >>>>>> ...... >>>>>> ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons >>>>>> >>>>>> Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the proposed multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet..... We will route our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through these reps... >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed >>>>>> >>>>>> (ends) >>>>>> >>>>>> parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Marília Maciel >>>>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>>>> >>>>> Researcher and Coordinator >>>>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>>> >>>>> DiploFoundation associate >>>>> www.diplomacy.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Marília Maciel >>>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>>> >>>> Researcher and Coordinator >>>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>> >>>> DiploFoundation associate >>>> www.diplomacy.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 12:50:48 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:50:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> <7AE30DCD-BB19-47EE-BD41-BE19F71CD01D@savitr.info> Message-ID: Well, I was precisely thinking to John (who always speaks only for himself, just like me ;)) and to Adiel, as they responded to Jeremy's reservations about 1net. I think we need to set aside mistrust and other such feelings/perceptions and do our best to make this work, at least until we are proven wrong with hard facts. And frankly, I don't see how this would happen since it has been recognized that we can have our direct channel to BR gov for the sole purpose of the BR conference. Unless... Is this about strategizing and positioning for post-BRconference? Hmmm... we'll still have time to assess the situation by then (including the meeting outcomes) and decide whether to make IGC or BB the CS counterpart and parallel to 1net or not. Just hoping this is not going to be an open season for power grab on the part of CSOs, which might be the only explanation left, in my opinion, for refusing to engage and cooperate with critical non-state stakeholders who would have shown good faith so far. Suresh, why can't we all get along? why am I often under the impression that you're trying to nag someone or are those just nudges? oh, then my bad! ;) mc. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:39 PM, John Curran wrote: > Suresh - > > It is my understanding the 1net initiative is about catalyzing "a > multi-stakeholder movement to > develop, through an open processes, a framework for evolving, broadening > and strengthening > Internet Governance/Cooperation arrangements, and to advocate for > its adoption." That's > likely to last some number of years (i.e. longer then the Brazil meeting) > and (in my opinion), it > cannot be the case that participating in 1net closes opportunity for > expression or participation > elsewhere. > > CS should participate in 1net if believes that the it will advance CS's > goals and mission. > > CS should reach out and seek representation and participation in other > forums as it feels > appropriate. If the purpose of the letter is "technical community is not > civil society, shut > them out", then that does not seem particularly productive to me (but it's > still your right to > do so.) If the purpose of a letter is to note that 1net is a fledging > organization that at this > point cannot reasonably be expected to represent CS with respect to the > Brazil meeting > planning activities and that you'd prefer to make CS appointments > directly, then it's worth > making that point. You could even cc the 1net Steering Committee (if one > should ever > come into being); they may even concur with the observation. > > /John > > Disclaimer: Very much my own views, and solely as one Internet citizen on > this mailing list. > > > On Nov 19, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > On 19-Nov-2013, at 21:27, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Oh, but that'd probably defeat the whole raison d'etre of that letter :) > > "technical community is not civil society, shut them out" etc etc. > > I say that while echoing multiple calls for transparency. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 19-Nov-2013, at 21:08, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > Just to clarify further: I am not against the letter Parminder suggested, > just think we could calibrate the language not to dismiss 1net as an option > for participation. > M > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Hi Parminder, >> >> I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS are also >> arguing for transparency, openness and participation for civil society in >> the Brazil process. In a similar way that we raised this in the IGF during >> meetings with the Brazilian government in the iStart meeting and in other >> spaces, we are doing it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board >> members), with governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the >> present situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve the right to >> change opinion) is: >> >> - It is not either/or. Both things should be done together: populate and >> participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves in our own spaces, >> sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual organizations. It is not >> clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but there is a possibility it will be >> important, so we should not be out of it. We also need a channel to >> exchange with other groups and this could be the channel >> >> - We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is >> representative and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself >> >> - 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What people >> are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For communication >> purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should reinforce that these people >> are our liaisons for the moment until 1 net exists and until (and if) we >> feel comfortable with it. >> >> - Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings >> >> Marília >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> Dear All >>> >>> There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just be >>> taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the Brazil >>> meeting through the 1net structure.... And we know that there was >>> overwhelming feeling among civil society that this should not be allowed, >>> and we should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG >>> kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out >>> of our paralysis? >>> >>> Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and >>> independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently present >>> our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the 1net or >>> whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we have as our >>> liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent >>> the time for that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it a bit >>> later). The following is a quick text suggestion... >>> >>> We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased to >>> note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a ............. (put the >>> official name of the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of >>> Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful conclusion. We >>> have chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to the >>> Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering committee that may >>> be set up. >>> >>> .... >>> ...... >>> >>> ...... >>> ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons >>> >>> Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal >>> presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the proposed >>> multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet..... We will >>> route our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through these reps... >>> >>> Signed >>> >>> >>> (ends) >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 13:05:42 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:05:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] ITU has a deficient internet plan In-Reply-To: References: <20131119035033.2807.qmail@f5mail-224-149.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: <65F5F278-D799-4293-A5C1-EB49861E8AF3@gmail.com> No talking and discussing about it mean only let it be! Am I wrong? Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq > El 19/11/2013, a las 10:47, Sivasubramanian M escribió: > > Hello > > Any discussion on ITU's "Internet Plan" gives ITU some status in Internet, because it says ITU and Internet on the same line. I would rather like to see the ITU having No Internet Plans, and nothing to do with Internet :) > > Sivasubramanian M > India. > > >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Blue Manta Networks wrote: >> http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/380343/itu-deficient-internet-plan >> >> >> >> Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email. >> Know More > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > India +91 99524 03099 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 13:13:29 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:13:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [I-coordination] Brazil Meeting Planning In-Reply-To: References: <9581032E-B850-4842-98A4-53F02723B1B9@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <77CA9517-8FF3-4B2C-B39C-792B9C6F7C5E@gmail.com> Is there any format to submit proposals? I would like to suggest analyze the role of international organizations, and their dependency, in the context of real success of IG. Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq > El 19/11/2013, a las 10:57, Mawaki Chango escribió: > > Any party/stakeholder may submit proposals to the conference. Proposed deadline for submittal of proposals is set as March 1, 2014. Giving a 60 day period for community consultation and proposal consolidation prior to the conference in late April/early May 2014. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 15:01:18 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 15:01:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> <7AE30DCD-BB19-47EE-BD41-BE19F71CD01D@savitr.info> Message-ID: Thank you Mawaki, all below very well said! May I just add that from a Big Picture perspective this is a enormous opportunity to advance the agenda that many in CS have been pushing for a decade. We now have a T&A backed dance partner. It would be a shame not to take advantage of it! -- 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, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Well, I was precisely thinking to John (who always speaks only for himself, > just like me ;)) and to Adiel, as they responded to Jeremy's reservations > about 1net. I think we need to set aside mistrust and other such > feelings/perceptions and do our best to make this work, at least until we > are proven wrong with hard facts. And frankly, I don't see how this would > happen since it has been recognized that we can have our direct channel to > BR gov for the sole purpose of the BR conference. > > Unless... > Is this about strategizing and positioning for post-BRconference? Hmmm... > we'll still have time to assess the situation by then (including the meeting > outcomes) and decide whether to make IGC or BB the CS counterpart and > parallel to 1net or not. Just hoping this is not going to be an open season > for power grab on the part of CSOs, which might be the only explanation > left, in my opinion, for refusing to engage and cooperate with critical > non-state stakeholders who would have shown good faith so far. > > Suresh, why can't we all get along? why am I often under the impression that > you're trying to nag someone or are those just nudges? oh, then my bad! ;) > > mc. > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:39 PM, John Curran wrote: >> >> Suresh - >> >> It is my understanding the 1net initiative is about catalyzing "a >> multi-stakeholder movement to >> develop, through an open processes, a framework for evolving, broadening >> and strengthening >> Internet Governance/Cooperation arrangements, and to advocate for its >> adoption." That's >> likely to last some number of years (i.e. longer then the Brazil meeting) >> and (in my opinion), it >> cannot be the case that participating in 1net closes opportunity for >> expression or participation >> elsewhere. >> >> CS should participate in 1net if believes that the it will advance CS's >> goals and mission. >> >> CS should reach out and seek representation and participation in other >> forums as it feels >> appropriate. If the purpose of the letter is "technical community is not >> civil society, shut >> them out", then that does not seem particularly productive to me (but it's >> still your right to >> do so.) If the purpose of a letter is to note that 1net is a fledging >> organization that at this >> point cannot reasonably be expected to represent CS with respect to the >> Brazil meeting >> planning activities and that you'd prefer to make CS appointments >> directly, then it's worth >> making that point. You could even cc the 1net Steering Committee (if one >> should ever >> come into being); they may even concur with the observation. >> >> /John >> >> Disclaimer: Very much my own views, and solely as one Internet citizen on >> this mailing list. >> >> >> On Nov 19, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >> >> On 19-Nov-2013, at 21:27, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> Oh, but that'd probably defeat the whole raison d'etre of that letter :) >> >> "technical community is not civil society, shut them out" etc etc. >> >> I say that while echoing multiple calls for transparency. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 19-Nov-2013, at 21:08, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> >> Just to clarify further: I am not against the letter Parminder suggested, >> just think we could calibrate the language not to dismiss 1net as an option >> for participation. >> M >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Marilia Maciel >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS are also >>> arguing for transparency, openness and participation for civil society in >>> the Brazil process. In a similar way that we raised this in the IGF during >>> meetings with the Brazilian government in the iStart meeting and in other >>> spaces, we are doing it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board >>> members), with governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the present >>> situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve the right to change >>> opinion) is: >>> >>> - It is not either/or. Both things should be done together: populate and >>> participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves in our own spaces, >>> sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual organizations. It is not >>> clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but there is a possibility it will be >>> important, so we should not be out of it. We also need a channel to exchange >>> with other groups and this could be the channel >>> >>> - We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is >>> representative and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself >>> >>> - 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What people >>> are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For communication >>> purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should reinforce that these people >>> are our liaisons for the moment until 1 net exists and until (and if) we >>> feel comfortable with it. >>> >>> - Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear All >>>> >>>> There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just be >>>> taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the Brazil >>>> meeting through the 1net structure.... And we know that there was >>>> overwhelming feeling among civil society that this should not be allowed, >>>> and we should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG >>>> kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out of >>>> our paralysis? >>>> >>>> Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and >>>> independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently present >>>> our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the 1net or >>>> whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we have as our >>>> liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent >>>> the time for that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it a bit >>>> later). The following is a quick text suggestion... >>>> >>>> We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased to >>>> note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a ............. (put the >>>> official name of the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of >>>> Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful conclusion. We >>>> have chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to the >>>> Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering committee that may >>>> be set up. >>>> >>>> .... >>>> ...... >>>> >>>> ...... >>>> ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons >>>> >>>> Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal >>>> presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the proposed >>>> multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet..... We will route >>>> our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through these reps... >>>> >>>> Signed >>>> >>>> >>>> (ends) >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Marília Maciel >>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Researcher and Coordinator >>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate >>> www.diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Marília Maciel >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 15:53:14 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:53:14 -0200 Subject: [governance] MS Selection Processes for Civil Socity (Call for Input) Message-ID: Dear All, Warm Greetings from Buenos Aires where we are still in the middle of ICANN 48. Trusting that you are all well and in excellent health. Various civil society organisation coordinators are communicating offlist and working out a common mechanism for combined engagement in the following: - Lead up to the preparations for Rio through identifying a shared mechanism for selection of civil society representatives into the Steering Committee etc: - Once the process is identified we will be making a call for volunteers etc, If you have ideas about how this shared mechanism for selecting people should look like such as voting or shared nomcom, please feed them here by replying to this email. We will channel your views to the discussions. Not all ideas will be used as we are working outside of ourselves and in collaboration with other stakeholder voices within civil society- Kind Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 19 16:10:24 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 21:10:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> <7AE30DCD-BB19-47EE-BD41-BE19F71CD01D@savitr.info> Message-ID: Tim, On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:01 PM, McTim wrote: > Thank you Mawaki, all below very well said! > > May I just add that from a Big Picture perspective this is a enormous > opportunity to advance the agenda that many in CS have been pushing > for a decade. We now have a T&A backed dance partner. It would be a > shame not to take advantage of it! > That may well be so, I begin to suspect. Tech folks know better; they just aren't troublemakers. They might have needed an opportunity like this to cause alignment with the troublemakers ;) and provide some political backup for (bold?) change. I am willing to give a chance to that hypothesis. Time will tell... In the meantime the worst we can/should do is to follow the Reaganian mantra: Trust but verify... in that order, I might add. Cheers, mc. > > -- > 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, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Mawaki Chango > wrote: > > Well, I was precisely thinking to John (who always speaks only for > himself, > > just like me ;)) and to Adiel, as they responded to Jeremy's reservations > > about 1net. I think we need to set aside mistrust and other such > > feelings/perceptions and do our best to make this work, at least until we > > are proven wrong with hard facts. And frankly, I don't see how this would > > happen since it has been recognized that we can have our direct channel > to > > BR gov for the sole purpose of the BR conference. > > > > Unless... > > Is this about strategizing and positioning for post-BRconference? Hmmm... > > we'll still have time to assess the situation by then (including the > meeting > > outcomes) and decide whether to make IGC or BB the CS counterpart and > > parallel to 1net or not. Just hoping this is not going to be an open > season > > for power grab on the part of CSOs, which might be the only explanation > > left, in my opinion, for refusing to engage and cooperate with critical > > non-state stakeholders who would have shown good faith so far. > > > > Suresh, why can't we all get along? why am I often under the impression > that > > you're trying to nag someone or are those just nudges? oh, then my bad! > ;) > > > > mc. > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:39 PM, John Curran wrote: > >> > >> Suresh - > >> > >> It is my understanding the 1net initiative is about catalyzing "a > >> multi-stakeholder movement to > >> develop, through an open processes, a framework for evolving, broadening > >> and strengthening > >> Internet Governance/Cooperation arrangements, and to advocate for its > >> adoption." That's > >> likely to last some number of years (i.e. longer then the Brazil > meeting) > >> and (in my opinion), it > >> cannot be the case that participating in 1net closes opportunity for > >> expression or participation > >> elsewhere. > >> > >> CS should participate in 1net if believes that the it will advance CS's > >> goals and mission. > >> > >> CS should reach out and seek representation and participation in other > >> forums as it feels > >> appropriate. If the purpose of the letter is "technical community is > not > >> civil society, shut > >> them out", then that does not seem particularly productive to me (but > it's > >> still your right to > >> do so.) If the purpose of a letter is to note that 1net is a fledging > >> organization that at this > >> point cannot reasonably be expected to represent CS with respect to the > >> Brazil meeting > >> planning activities and that you'd prefer to make CS appointments > >> directly, then it's worth > >> making that point. You could even cc the 1net Steering Committee (if > one > >> should ever > >> come into being); they may even concur with the observation. > >> > >> /John > >> > >> Disclaimer: Very much my own views, and solely as one Internet citizen > on > >> this mailing list. > >> > >> > >> On Nov 19, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > >> wrote: > >> > >> On 19-Nov-2013, at 21:27, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > >> > >> Oh, but that'd probably defeat the whole raison d'etre of that letter :) > >> > >> "technical community is not civil society, shut them out" etc etc. > >> > >> I say that while echoing multiple calls for transparency. > >> > >> --srs (iPad) > >> > >> On 19-Nov-2013, at 21:08, Marilia Maciel > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Just to clarify further: I am not against the letter Parminder > suggested, > >> just think we could calibrate the language not to dismiss 1net as an > option > >> for participation. > >> M > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Marilia Maciel < > mariliamaciel at gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Parminder, > >>> > >>> I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS are also > >>> arguing for transparency, openness and participation for civil society > in > >>> the Brazil process. In a similar way that we raised this in the IGF > during > >>> meetings with the Brazilian government in the iStart meeting and in > other > >>> spaces, we are doing it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board > >>> members), with governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the > present > >>> situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve the right to > change > >>> opinion) is: > >>> > >>> - It is not either/or. Both things should be done together: populate > and > >>> participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves in our own spaces, > >>> sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual organizations. It is not > >>> clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but there is a possibility it > will be > >>> important, so we should not be out of it. We also need a channel to > exchange > >>> with other groups and this could be the channel > >>> > >>> - We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is > >>> representative and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself > >>> > >>> - 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What > people > >>> are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For communication > >>> purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should reinforce that these > people > >>> are our liaisons for the moment until 1 net exists and until (and if) > we > >>> feel comfortable with it. > >>> > >>> - Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings > >>> > >>> Marília > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder > > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear All > >>>> > >>>> There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just > be > >>>> taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the > Brazil > >>>> meeting through the 1net structure.... And we know that there was > >>>> overwhelming feeling among civil society that this should not be > allowed, > >>>> and we should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the active > IG > >>>> kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come > out of > >>>> our paralysis? > >>>> > >>>> Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and > >>>> independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently > present > >>>> our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the 1net or > >>>> whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we have as our > >>>> liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that liason structure. > Havent > >>>> the time for that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it a > bit > >>>> later). The following is a quick text suggestion... > >>>> > >>>> We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased to > >>>> note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a ............. > (put the > >>>> official name of the meeting here) . We are happy to help the > government of > >>>> Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful conclusion. > We > >>>> have chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to the > >>>> Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering committee > that may > >>>> be set up. > >>>> > >>>> .... > >>>> ...... > >>>> > >>>> ...... > >>>> ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons > >>>> > >>>> Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal > >>>> presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the > proposed > >>>> multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet..... We will > route > >>>> our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through these reps... > >>>> > >>>> Signed > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> (ends) > >>>> > >>>> parminder > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Marília Maciel > >>> Pesquisadora Gestora > >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > >>> > >>> Researcher and Coordinator > >>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > >>> > >>> DiploFoundation associate > >>> www.diplomacy.edu > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Marília Maciel > >> Pesquisadora Gestora > >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > >> > >> Researcher and Coordinator > >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > >> > >> DiploFoundation associate > >> www.diplomacy.edu > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Nov 19 16:15:31 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 21:15:31 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC Message-ID: > In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy > leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old > voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years or > more. > +1 I agree with you Andrew. The new generation should fill the boots but also grow with the lessons learned by those who came before and avoid their pitfalls. And youth is not age, but new leaderships and thinking being pumped into the policy making processes. We should avoid a situation where stale ideas are being recycled with the same effect. Remember, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. But we should not forget those seasoned CS who still continue to be voices of reason in all these processes. ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya. twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 20 00:09:41 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:39:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <528C4415.6050709@itforchange.net> Marilia I has asked to only be clear that *for the purpose of organsing the forthcoming Brazil meeting* civil society would want independent and direct liason with Brazil gov. I have no comment here whether or not we engage with 1net and if so how (Though I think we indeed should engage laterally with that group.)..... There is adequate evidence that Brazil gov thinks that it is ok to have 1net coordinates non gov participation on the meeting, We have to specifically address this point. If we dont, we remain where we are -- and most likely having to go through the 1net.... Governments need clear and precise communication on such things. In the background where we stand today, that can be made only be made by clearly sayign that *we do not want our representation to be fronted or channeled through 1net*. Anything less will not clear the misconceptions that seem solidly settled in Brazilian's mind at present. I think we have gone back and forth for too long about what to say to the Brazil gov on our role in the Brazil meeting - for about a month now... As a consequence our role is being and will continue to be determined by default, as a part of other stakeholderholder groups' strategies. I rest my case here, parminder On Tuesday 19 November 2013 09:08 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Just to clarify further: I am not against the letter Parminder > suggested, just think we could calibrate the language not to dismiss > 1net as an option for participation. > M > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Marilia Maciel > > wrote: > > Hi Parminder, > > I am writing from ICANN meeting in BA where some folks from CS are > also arguing for transparency, openness and participation for > civil society in the Brazil process. In a similar way that we > raised this in the IGF during meetings with the Brazilian > government in the iStart meeting and in other spaces, we are doing > it here with ICANN staff (Fadi, Thereza, Board members), with > governments, etc. My very quick thoughts based on the present > situation (things are changing very fast, so I reserve the right > to change opinion) is: > > - It is not either/or. Both things should be done together: > populate and participate 1net and continue to organize ourselves > in our own spaces, sending contributions as IGC, BB or individual > organizations. It is not clear yet how relevant 1net will be, but > there is a possibility it will be important, so we should not be > out of it. We also need a channel to exchange with other groups > and this could be the channel > > - We need to make sure that a steering committee of 1 net is > representative and includes CS reps chosen by CS itself > > - 1 net does not exist so far and does not have a committee. What > people are doing is going straight to Fadi or to the Br gov. For > communication purposes, we have appointed liaisons and should > reinforce that these people are our liaisons for the moment until > 1 net exists and until (and if) we feel comfortable with it. > > - Our liaisons need to be included in all meetings > > Marília > > > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, parminder > > wrote: > > Dear All > > There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov > may just be taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov > participation in the Brazil meeting through the 1net > structure.... And we know that there was overwhelming feeling > among civil society that this should not be allowed, and we > should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside the active > IG kind is even more strongly of this view). Are we know > willing to come out of our paralysis? > > Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and > independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to > independently present our liasons directly accountable to us > and not through the 1net or whatever...And just forward the > four Brazilain names we have as our liasons... We do not have > to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent the time for > that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it a bit > later). The following is a quick text suggestion... > > We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups > are pleased to note that Brazil has made a formal > announcement of a ............. (put the official name of > the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of > Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful > conclusion. We have chosen the below mentioned four > persons to be our liason to the Brazilian government and > also to be put on any steering committee that may be set up. > > .... > ...... > > ...... > ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons > > Please include our above representatives in all meetings, > formal presentations etc that will henceforth take place > regarding the proposed multistakeholder meeting on the > future of the Internet..... We will route our inputs to > the organisation of this meeting through these reps... > > Signed > > > (ends) > > parminder > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 20 00:54:53 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 03:54:53 -0200 Subject: [governance] civil society role in Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:35 AM, parminder wrote: > Dear All > > There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may just be > taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov participation in the Brazil > meeting through the 1net structure.... > Sala: This is contrary to what I have been hearing from various subscribers and members of the IGC and even others within other civil society organisations. My sensing is that there is desire to collaborate and engage. This is obvious from the numbers that have subscribed to the mailing list and also from corridor discussions and talks via email or skpe. Please remember that in Bali, we did not collectively agree that we would not engage, it was supposed to be a strategy meeting. We can very easily take a poll on the matter- > And we know that there was overwhelming feeling among civil society that > this should not be allowed, and we should have a direct liason. (Civil > society outside the active IG kind is even more strongly of this view). Are > we know willing to come out of our paralysis? > Sala: Firstly apologies for the delayed response, have been busy catching up with work and emails and conference matters as there are some substantive public policy issues affecting global public interest that demanded our immediate attention. One of the reasons why we were initially cautious about INET was because it was not clarified to us at the time what INET was supposed to be which caused most of us if not all to be suspicious about the process and allude "power grabs". From discussions with some of the I Star group, not ICANN, I was told that this was simply designed to be a blanket slate where stakeholders and different constituencies can come to the table and draft and design the Agenda and ensure that they field their representatives to the table. We all come as equals to the table. *Reasons Why We should Engage with I star group and come to the Table at I Net* Firstly, kindly note that the I NET is like an open virtual forum and it is not owned by any one single group or constituency. Secondly, in a world where we know that enhanced cooperation is critical in development and addressing concerns affectng global interest, it makes sense to work towards building bridges. We need to work towards engaging with other constituencies in an intelligent and rational manner. To not engage is to effectively render our voice meaningless. Advoacy has to be strategic and directed and we need to come alongside other communities and add our diversity and voices. The Government of Brazil would be innundated with hundreds of voices if there were no effective mechanism to channel the voices to her in the course of organising a Global Conference. To this end, I would strongly recommend that we engage. There are some of you who sit on the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) so enhanced cooperation should be practised. We must reach beyond ourselves, find strength in our values and character and engage. We do not need to be abrasive to be good advocates. To reach out, we must first engender the confidence in those that we are reaching out to. This does not mean compromising our values and principles but rather it means that we need to build strong relationships where we can encourage dialogue. I have absolute faith that when we come to the table in INET our voices will be heard. Right now we do not have much time as Brazil draws nigh and we need to accelerate our preparations. As per my previous update a few hours ago (yesterday as it is now 2:40am as I write this to you), civil society organisations heads are discussing mechanisms for selection of civil society representatives, noting that we all have diverse selection processes with the IGC using NomComs etc. You can respond to my other email if you have ideas about processes and mechanisms. For now, please Values command the respect of our colleagues as engagement and negotiations will play out not just in 2014 but beyond. Because of this, we should not isolate ourselves but dialogue and engage. My advice would be to come to the table in the I star engagement and lend our voice as civil society. To lend our voices as civil society, we need to engage with all these stakeholders. The key thing here is to ENGAGE. There will be certain positions that we will need our alliances to agree on, in terms of key positions on things like the preservation of an open and free internet as mandated by our Charter. > > Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and independent > liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently present our liasons > directly accountable to us and not through the 1net or whatever...And just > forward the four Brazilain names we have as our liasons... We do not have > to change/ expand that liason structure. Havent the time for that. (and if > some people insist, we can always do it a bit later). The following is a > quick text suggestion... > > Sala: The letter that is being prepared names the liaisons that we will > have on the ground in Brazil. The Government of Brazil will be working with > diverse stakeholders and it has to come through a mechanism which happens > to be the INET. The INET is not owned by any of the I*. It was designed to > bring everyone as equals where all constituencies can organise themselves > and the way forward. The only thing I had an issue with was that the > mechanisms for participating were recently prepared and sent to us. It is > unclear at this stage, whether that was designed by the Brazil Government > although I have been informed that it was designed by the Brazil > Government. There is nothing stopping us from commenting on the structure > of the mechanism but we should do so not with the intention to subvert the > round table allowing for diverse constituencies to come to the table (there > is a world bigger than civil society) as the pressing deadline will demand > extensive coordination in streaming things and preparing for San Paulo. > > We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are pleased to > note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a ............. (put the > official name of the meeting here) . We are happy to help the government of > Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a successful conclusion. We > have chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to the > Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering committee that may > be set up. > > > > .... > ...... > > ...... > ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons > > Please include our above representatives in all meetings, formal > presentations etc that will henceforth take place regarding the proposed > multistakeholder meeting on the future of the Internet..... We will route > our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through these reps... > > Signed > > > (ends) > > parminder > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Nov 20 02:00:34 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 23:00:34 -0800 Subject: [governance] VIDEO : Is There A Third Way For The Internet: Neither The US Nor The UN But Independence? Message-ID: <06eb01cee5be$361e37a0$a25aa6e0$@gmail.com> FYI… http://thegovlab.org/live-a-call-to-action-help-us-design-a-21st-century-icann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 20 02:08:01 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:38:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] civil society role in Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <528C5FD1.8050900@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 20 November 2013 11:24 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:35 AM, parminder > wrote: > > Dear All > > There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may > just be taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov > participation in the Brazil meeting through the 1net structure.... > > Sala: This is contrary to what I have been hearing from various > subscribers and members of the IGC and even others within other civil > society organisations. My sensing is that there is desire to > collaborate and engage. This is obvious from the numbers that have > subscribed to the mailing list and also from corridor discussions and > talks via email or skpe. Please remember that in Bali, we did not > collectively agree that we would not engage, it was supposed to be a > strategy meeting. We can very easily take a poll on the matter- We need to seriously separate two different issues 1. Having CS representation for a role in Brazil meeting being channelled/ fronted by 1net 2. Having a lateral engagement with 1net, for a purpose of dialogue and so on My response to 1 above is *no* and to 2 above is *yes*. So please indicate responses to 1 and 2 separately.... We have kept up this confusion for more than a month now. When at Bali i asked for an 'independent' CS liason to Brazil meeting, Wolfgang propositioned, in my view, very much out of context, that 'independent' is not good and we should work together. Such a confusion is carrying on, effectively paralysing us, and making us completely ineffective. Sala, please mention your response to 1 and 2 above separately... I gather from your emails below that your response to both is yes... If so, that is a clear view. Mine is as indicated above... And my impression from emails and f2f discussions among IGC and BB members has been that while they are fine to do 2 above the overwhelming response to 1 above is negative.... But happy for people to state their views now... And as you suggest, yes we can have a poll... but seperately on 1 and 2... parminder > And we know that there was overwhelming feeling among civil > society that this should not be allowed, and we should have a > direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG kind is even > more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out of > our paralysis? > > Sala: > Firstly apologies for the delayed response, have been busy catching up > with work and emails and conference matters as there are some > substantive public policy issues affecting global public interest that > demanded our immediate attention. > One of the reasons why we were initially cautious about INET was > because it was not clarified to us at the time what INET was supposed > to be which caused most of us if not all to be suspicious about the > process and allude "power grabs". From discussions with some of the I > Star group, not ICANN, I was told that this was simply designed to be > a blanket slate where stakeholders and different constituencies can > come to the table and draft and design the Agenda and ensure that they > field their representatives to the table. We all come as equals to the > table. > *Reasons Why We should Engage with I star group and come to the Table > at I Net* > Firstly, kindly note that the I NET is like an open virtual forum and > it is not owned by any one single group or constituency. Secondly, in > a world where we know that enhanced cooperation is critical in > development and addressing concerns affectng global interest, it makes > sense to work towards building bridges. We need to work towards > engaging with other constituencies in an intelligent and rational > manner. To not engage is to effectively render our voice meaningless. > Advoacy has to be strategic and directed and we need to come alongside > other communities and add our diversity and voices. > The Government of Brazil would be innundated with hundreds of voices > if there were no effective mechanism to channel the voices to her in > the course of organising a Global Conference. To this end, I would > strongly recommend that we engage. There are some of you who sit on > the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) so enhanced > cooperation should be practised. We must reach beyond ourselves, find > strength in our values and character and engage. We do not need to be > abrasive to be good advocates. To reach out, we must first engender > the confidence in those that we are reaching out to. This does not > mean compromising our values and principles but rather it means that > we need to build strong relationships where we can encourage dialogue. > I have absolute faith that when we come to the table in INET our > voices will be heard. > Right now we do not have much time as Brazil draws nigh and we need to > accelerate our preparations. As per my previous update a few hours ago > (yesterday as it is now 2:40am as I write this to you), civil society > organisations heads are discussing mechanisms for selection of civil > society representatives, noting that we all have diverse selection > processes with the IGC using NomComs etc. You can respond to my other > email if you have ideas about processes and mechanisms. For now, please > Values command the respect of our colleagues as engagement and > negotiations will play out not just in 2014 but beyond. Because of > this, we should not isolate ourselves but dialogue and engage. My > advice would be to come to the table in the I star engagement and lend > our voice as civil society. To lend our voices as civil society, we > need to engage with all these stakeholders. The key thing here is to > ENGAGE. There will be certain positions that we will need our > alliances to agree on, in terms of key positions on things like the > preservation of an open and free internet as mandated by our Charter. > > > Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and > independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently > present our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the > 1net or whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we > have as our liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that > liason structure. Havent the time for that. (and if some people > insist, we can always do it a bit later). The following is a quick > text suggestion... > > Sala: The letter that is being prepared names the liaisons that we > will have on the ground in Brazil. The Government of Brazil will > be working with diverse stakeholders and it has to come through a > mechanism which happens to be the INET. The INET is not owned by > any of the I*. It was designed to bring everyone as equals where > all constituencies can organise themselves and the way forward. > The only thing I had an issue with was that the mechanisms for > participating were recently prepared and sent to us. It is unclear > at this stage, whether that was designed by the Brazil Government > although I have been informed that it was designed by the Brazil > Government. There is nothing stopping us from commenting on the > structure of the mechanism but we should do so not with the > intention to subvert the round table allowing for diverse > constituencies to come to the table (there is a world bigger than > civil society) as the pressing deadline will demand extensive > coordination in streaming things and preparing for San Paulo. > > We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are > pleased to note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of > a ............. (put the official name of the meeting here) . > We are happy to help the government of Brazil organise this > meeting and take it to a successful conclusion. We have > chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to > the Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering > committee that may be set up. > > .... > ...... > > ...... > ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons > > Please include our above representatives in all meetings, > formal presentations etc that will henceforth take place > regarding the proposed multistakeholder meeting on the future > of the Internet..... We will route our inputs to the > organisation of this meeting through these reps... > > Signed > > > (ends) > > parminder > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Nov 20 04:10:59 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:10:59 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] NSA and the end of an empire Message-ID: <1141687452.6030.1384938659064.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h24> Dear members of the list this link to an interesting article for your information : http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/11/the-nsa-and-the-end-of-the-u-s-empire/ Greetings Jean-Louis Fullsack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 20 05:04:44 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:04:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] NSA and the end of an empire In-Reply-To: <1141687452.6030.1384938659064.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h24> References: <1141687452.6030.1384938659064.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h24> Message-ID: Pollyannas enjoy more attention than Cassandras. - - - On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear members of the list > > this link to an interesting article for your information : > > http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/11/the-nsa-and-the-end-of-the-u-s-empire/ > > > > Greetings > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Wed Nov 20 09:57:26 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:57:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] VIDEO : Is There A Third Way For The Internet: Neither The US Nor The UN But Independence? In-Reply-To: <06eb01cee5be$361e37a0$a25aa6e0$@gmail.com> References: <06eb01cee5be$361e37a0$a25aa6e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks, Michael, for the link. I was unaware that Wagner - in ISOC-NY's backyard - had got into Governance. I've written them. For anyone, misled by the subject line, the 'third way' video is here: http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6092 j On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:00 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > FYI… > > > > > http://thegovlab.org/live-a-call-to-action-help-us-design-a-21st-century-icann > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.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 jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Nov 20 13:01:35 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 19:01:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] civil society role in Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <528B7743.2030503@itforchange.net> <7AE30DCD-BB19-47EE-BD41-BE19F71CD01D@savitr.info> Message-ID: On 17:39 19/11/2013, John Curran said: >It is my understanding the 1net initiative is about catalyzing "a >multi-stakeholder movement to develop Dear John, Please realize that an "MS movement" only means to lobby for a change in decision mechanisms from "vote" to a "broad consensus". Nothing more. This does not make an esthetic, ethic, doctrine, or strategy. This does not even state who is concerned. It only refers to new ways to manipulate smoke screens and how lobbying is to be updated :-) This is certainly important to the whole I* community business, but as an Internet User I am not interested in the I*$ociety. I just expect the internet laws and data transportation services to work. I do not mind using an ITU IPv6 numbering plan if the IANA one faces a palace coup. Nor to change TCP/IP to something more secure (btw why are we not using SCTP so much?) The concern is only that many competences and people, good technicians, dedicated operators, enthusiast salespersons, and professional managers depend on something which is going with the wind in order to operate and provide a service that the humanity depends on. The question is no longer "can this be enhanced and protected from collapsing under a grassroots reaction": I am convinced that we have passed that point. There is no doubt now that the existing internet industry will change and that its current business and coordinating structures will have to drastically reshape (it may take time as ego, understanding and R&D hysteresis is strong, but things are now most probably irreversible). Therefore, 1net & co are of no-interest, except as a pool of people acquiring experience in a shallow context and able to confuse and delay many people The question now is how to prepare, support, and conduct as efficiently as possible that grassroots reaction (and/or to positively channel and canalize it) for it to be as short, useful, and productive for a better world development, and permit the largest number of today's participants to serve in it and benefit from it. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Nov 20 13:48:56 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:48:56 -0800 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges Message-ID: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> I’m thinking that if ICANN is so concerned to ensure a broad base of interested parties to address Internet Governance issues perhaps it could use some of it’s “tax revenue” as the gate keeper to the Internet to establish a fund to provide a solid and independent base of funding support to help build and support Civil Society in this area rather than, as appears currently to be the case, attempting through (selectively) widening the base of ICANN’s activity (and perk/travel funding) to absorb/incorporate/coopt leading elements of those in Civil Society with an interest in/knowledge about Internet Governance issues. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/111813-icann-sets-up-39coalition39-to-276037.html Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Nov 20 16:25:41 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:25:41 +1100 Subject: [governance] Big Data - big problem Message-ID: I think corporate and governmental surveillance and unregulated use of our personal data is a huge issue. This article from Bruce Schneier gives a lot of good background on how bad things are - in an earlier essay he likened the problem to the pollution of the early industrial era which went unregulated until it became a massive uncontrollable problem. We really do have to get on top of this one - and unfortunately large internet corporations whose profit is dependent on using our personal data and governments of differing political persuasions who are part of alliances that give unregulated permission to do anything to their surveillance communities are not going to help. Big problem... http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/20/opinion/schneier-stalker-economy/index.html Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 20 17:42:12 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 04:12:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: The second seems much more sustainable long term. Or at least ICANN gets to choose which civil society organizations it decides to fund. Funding an organization that is entirely at cross purposes policy wise with them, and/or seems to feel IG is best served by attacking ICANN at every opportunity doesn't appear to make as much sense as it should. --srs (iPad) > On 21-Nov-2013, at 0:18, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > I’m thinking that if ICANN is so concerned to ensure a broad base of interested parties to address Internet Governance issues perhaps it could use some of it’s “tax revenue” as the gate keeper to the Internet to establish a fund to provide a solid and independent base of funding support to help build and support Civil Society in this area rather than, as appears currently to be the case, attempting through (selectively) widening the base of ICANN’s activity (and perk/travel funding) to absorb/incorporate/coopt leading elements of those in Civil Society with an interest in/knowledge about Internet Governance issues. > > http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/111813-icann-sets-up-39coalition39-to-276037.html > > Mike > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Wed Nov 20 18:38:49 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 19:38:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: >Funding an organization that is entirely at cross purposes policy >wise with them, and/or seems to feel IG is best served by attacking >ICANN at every opportunity doesn't appear to make as much sense as it should. Suresh, you are just giving arguments to whoever ask for scrutiny on how the funding flows.. :-) Organizations to serve public matters are not supposed anyway to discriminate the public in function of such arguments! Back in the late 80's IBM was the largest funder of BITNET, one of the precursor networks, a big part of that money falled in the pockets of telecom carriers and many employees used the same type of arguments to stop that. Fortunately they did not convince the decision makers (who wanted to enhance the image of the company in the academic sector and helped the growth of academic netorks... -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Nov 20 18:48:58 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 05:18:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sure, I am entirely open to the idea that organizations you fund must have as broad an overall profile as possible. Just doesn't make as much sense to fund those that are actively hostile to your interests. Especially where, unlike bitnet, the organizations in question are purely policy oriented with no actual product or deliverable than the contents of assorted PDF and PPT files --srs (iPad) > On 21-Nov-2013, at 5:08, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > > >> Funding an organization that is entirely at cross purposes policy wise with them, and/or seems to feel IG is best served by attacking ICANN at every opportunity doesn't appear to make as much sense as it should. > Suresh, you are just giving arguments to whoever ask for scrutiny on how the funding flows.. :-) > Organizations to serve public matters are not supposed anyway to discriminate the public in function of such arguments! > > Back in the late 80's IBM was the largest funder of BITNET, one of the precursor networks, a big part of that money falled > in the pockets of telecom carriers and many employees used the same type of arguments to stop that. Fortunately > they did not convince the decision makers (who wanted to enhance the image of the company in the academic sector > and helped the growth of academic netorks... > > > > > -- > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 00:27:18 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 21:27:18 -0800 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com> Many of the actions of ICANN post-Fadi indicate a significant shift in ICANN’s positioning within the overall Internet ecology—from being a simple player among other players to a self-initiated leadership role on behalf of the general well-being of the Internet and of the Internet ecology overall. Many are uneasy with this but if ICANN wishes to occupy that role (and given their privileged financial position as gatekeeper/rent extractor they are in a position to present themselves for this) then they have an interest in/responsibility for supporting the weakest link in that multi-stakeholder Internet ecology i.e. Civil Society. Whether or not there is criticism flowing between ICANN and CS is overall irrelevant in this larger scheme of things. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 2:42 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges The second seems much more sustainable long term. Or at least ICANN gets to choose which civil society organizations it decides to fund. Funding an organization that is entirely at cross purposes policy wise with them, and/or seems to feel IG is best served by attacking ICANN at every opportunity doesn't appear to make as much sense as it should. --srs (iPad) On 21-Nov-2013, at 0:18, "michael gurstein" wrote: I’m thinking that if ICANN is so concerned to ensure a broad base of interested parties to address Internet Governance issues perhaps it could use some of it’s “tax revenue” as the gate keeper to the Internet to establish a fund to provide a solid and independent base of funding support to help build and support Civil Society in this area rather than, as appears currently to be the case, attempting through (selectively) widening the base of ICANN’s activity (and perk/travel funding) to absorb/incorporate/coopt leading elements of those in Civil Society with an interest in/knowledge about Internet Governance issues. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/111813-icann-sets-up-39coalition39-to-276037.html Mike ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Nov 21 00:47:42 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:17:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com> References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <528D9E7E.6010204@itforchange.net> On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Many of the actions of ICANN post-Fadi indicate a significant shift in > ICANN’s positioning within the overall Internet ecology—from being a > simple player among other players to a self-initiated leadership role > on behalf of the general well-being of the Internet and of the > Internet ecology overall. > The question is; how much of it is motivated by, and represents. US's geopolitical interests...... US treats itself as the global political capital, but is constrained by the UN-ish model of one country one vote. (Democracy is always such a nuisance for the elite!)... So it has been able to give such a UNish model, which stand in its way in terms of legitimatizing global power, the bad name of 'multilateralism'. US sees in big business, and the rising (upper-ish) middle class of many developing countries (through civil society entities most closely connected to these classes), solid allies that can help legitimatize its global political power - with some concessions thrown at them here and there.. This is why an ICANNist 'multistakeholder' model of global governance serves it so well. Many recent documents arising from US think tanks show this to be a considered strategy of the US establishment ..... The main aim of the current round of engagements around the proposed Brazil meeting is to present the ICANN model of governance for substantive public policy areas.... Once such a model is established in the Internet space, it will be sought to be extended to other global policy areas as well... Not that all, or even most, involved actors from the I* space are deliberately following such a pre-mediated path on the behest of the US. Nevertheless, this strong congruence with US's political interests remains a key propelling force that is giving energy to the push for ICANN model for addressing global Internet related public policy issues. Or in other words, maybe giving ICANN a role in te 'wider Internet ecology'. parminder > Many are uneasy with this but if ICANN wishes to occupy that role (and > given their privileged financial position as gatekeeper/rent extractor > they are in a position to present themselves for this) then they have > an interest in/responsibility for supporting the weakest link in that > multi-stakeholder Internet ecology i.e. Civil Society. Whether or not > there is criticism flowing between ICANN and CS is overall irrelevant > in this larger scheme of things. > > M > > *From:*Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 20, 2013 2:42 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to > address new Internet governance challenges > > The second seems much more sustainable long term. Or at least ICANN > gets to choose which civil society organizations it decides to fund. > Funding an organization that is entirely at cross purposes policy wise > with them, and/or seems to feel IG is best served by attacking ICANN > at every opportunity doesn't appear to make as much sense as it should. > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 21-Nov-2013, at 0:18, "michael gurstein" > wrote: > > *I’m thinking that if ICANN is so concerned to ensure a broad base > of interested parties to address Internet Governance issues > perhaps it could use some of it’s “tax revenue” as the gate keeper > to the Internet to establish a fund to provide a solid and > independent base of funding support to help build and support > Civil Society in this area rather than, as appears currently to be > the case, attempting through (selectively) widening the base of > ICANN’s activity (and perk/travel funding) to > absorb/incorporate/coopt leading elements of those in Civil > Society with an interest in/knowledge about Internet Governance > issues.* > > http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/111813-icann-sets-up-39coalition39-to-276037.html > > *Mike* > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 21 00:53:27 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:23:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com> References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com> Message-ID: That is ironic, to be honest. There's a substantial cross section of civil society already active in ICANN - and that does not include just the technical community [which is also civil society, whether some here choose to believe it or not]. There is also a section of civil society that is much more vocal about the rights and entitlement of civil society - and yet denies the right of the technical community, and of technical organizations, to be called civil society. And still expects to continue receiving funding from a predominantly technical community driven process or organization. My question would be whether some in civil society are focused on being the weakest link and then expecting aid and funding for the privilege of being so, from organizations that they appear to consider entirely hostile, judging by the tenor of each mailing list / blog post, tweet etc. --srs (iPad) > On 21-Nov-2013, at 10:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Many of the actions of ICANN post-Fadi indicate a significant shift in ICANN’s positioning within the overall Internet ecology—from being a simple player among other players to a self-initiated leadership role on behalf of the general well-being of the Internet and of the Internet ecology overall. > > Many are uneasy with this but if ICANN wishes to occupy that role (and given their privileged financial position as gatekeeper/rent extractor they are in a position to present themselves for this) then they have an interest in/responsibility for supporting the weakest link in that multi-stakeholder Internet ecology i.e. Civil Society. Whether or not there is criticism flowing between ICANN and CS is overall irrelevant in this larger scheme of things. > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 2:42 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges > > The second seems much more sustainable long term. Or at least ICANN gets to choose which civil society organizations it decides to fund. Funding an organization that is entirely at cross purposes policy wise with them, and/or seems to feel IG is best served by attacking ICANN at every opportunity doesn't appear to make as much sense as it should. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 21-Nov-2013, at 0:18, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > I’m thinking that if ICANN is so concerned to ensure a broad base of interested parties to address Internet Governance issues perhaps it could use some of it’s “tax revenue” as the gate keeper to the Internet to establish a fund to provide a solid and independent base of funding support to help build and support Civil Society in this area rather than, as appears currently to be the case, attempting through (selectively) widening the base of ICANN’s activity (and perk/travel funding) to absorb/incorporate/coopt leading elements of those in Civil Society with an interest in/knowledge about Internet Governance issues. > > http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/111813-icann-sets-up-39coalition39-to-276037.html > > Mike > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 21 00:57:07 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:27:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: <528D9E7E.6010204@itforchange.net> References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com> <528D9E7E.6010204@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <31F971BD-542F-4D15-8EBE-C3AE960B565F@hserus.net> ICANN is part and parcel of the "wider internet ecology" .. you can't have an organization responsible for one of the fundamental underpinnings of the internet not being part and parcel of "the wider internet anything". As for the rest of the speculation on motivations, my late grandmother used to say that someone with jaundice thinks the whole world is yellow. In other words, if you see political machinations behind anything and everything, it is likely that your entire world view revolves enough around political machinations, which tends to confer a sort of tunnel vision perspective, where each and every action is viewed as the symptom of a deep laid political plot. --srs (iPad) > On 21-Nov-2013, at 11:17, parminder wrote: > > >> On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Many of the actions of ICANN post-Fadi indicate a significant shift in ICANN’s positioning within the overall Internet ecology—from being a simple player among other players to a self-initiated leadership role on behalf of the general well-being of the Internet and of the Internet ecology overall. > > The question is; how much of it is motivated by, and represents. US's geopolitical interests...... US treats itself as the global political capital, but is constrained by the UN-ish model of one country one vote. (Democracy is always such a nuisance for the elite!)... So it has been able to give such a UNish model, which stand in its way in terms of legitimatizing global power, the bad name of 'multilateralism'. US sees in big business, and the rising (upper-ish) middle class of many developing countries (through civil society entities most closely connected to these classes), solid allies that can help legitimatize its global political power - with some concessions thrown at them here and there.. This is why an ICANNist 'multistakeholder' model of global governance serves it so well. Many recent documents arising from US think tanks show this to be a considered strategy of the US establishment ..... The main aim of the current round of engagements around the proposed Brazil meeting is to present the ICANN model of governance for substantive public policy areas.... Once such a model is established in the Internet space, it will be sought to be extended to other global policy areas as well... Not that all, or even most, involved actors from the I* space are deliberately following such a pre-mediated path on the behest of the US. Nevertheless, this strong congruence with US's political interests remains a key propelling force that is giving energy to the push for ICANN model for addressing global Internet related public policy issues. Or in other words, maybe giving ICANN a role in te 'wider Internet ecology'. > > parminder > > >> >> Many are uneasy with this but if ICANN wishes to occupy that role (and given their privileged financial position as gatekeeper/rent extractor they are in a position to present themselves for this) then they have an interest in/responsibility for supporting the weakest link in that multi-stakeholder Internet ecology i.e. Civil Society. Whether or not there is criticism flowing between ICANN and CS is overall irrelevant in this larger scheme of things. >> >> M >> >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 2:42 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >> Subject: Re: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges >> >> The second seems much more sustainable long term. Or at least ICANN gets to choose which civil society organizations it decides to fund. Funding an organization that is entirely at cross purposes policy wise with them, and/or seems to feel IG is best served by attacking ICANN at every opportunity doesn't appear to make as much sense as it should. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 21-Nov-2013, at 0:18, "michael gurstein" wrote: >> >> I’m thinking that if ICANN is so concerned to ensure a broad base of interested parties to address Internet Governance issues perhaps it could use some of it’s “tax revenue” as the gate keeper to the Internet to establish a fund to provide a solid and independent base of funding support to help build and support Civil Society in this area rather than, as appears currently to be the case, attempting through (selectively) widening the base of ICANN’s activity (and perk/travel funding) to absorb/incorporate/coopt leading elements of those in Civil Society with an interest in/knowledge about Internet Governance issues. >> >> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/111813-icann-sets-up-39coalition39-to-276037.html >> >> Mike >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From alex.comninos at gmail.com Thu Nov 21 05:19:06 2013 From: alex.comninos at gmail.com (Alex Comninos) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:19:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Update: Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] Message-ID: Dear All I would like to Nominate Mwendwa Kivuva. Kind regards, Alex Comninos ... Alex Comninos | doctoral candidate Department of Geography, Justus Liebig University, Gießen Skype: alexcomninos5 | http:// comninos.org | Twitter: @alexcomninos PGP Fingerprint: 24CC 4827 A352 D9A1 2E81 4E95 42D0 D8DB 0C46 425B PGP Public Key: http://pool.sks-keyservers.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x42D0D8DB0C46425B I intend to become less dependent on Gmail/Google, so note my new alternative email: alex.comninos at riseup.net On 12 November 2013 23:30, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > This is an update to advise that so far we have two nominations for the > coordinator position:- > > 1) Deirdre Williams > 2) Imran Ahmed Shah > > We welcome more nominations. Kindly note that Coordinators, can encourage > people to stand but cannot directly nominate as we will be facilitating the > elections process so in the interest of accountability and transparency, we > have to maintain our neutrality. > > For those who are thinking of standing in the elections, please refer to my > email below. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > (soon to be outgoing co-coordinator) > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Further to the June 6, 2013 notice for calls for coordinator, we are happy >> to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on December 1, >> 2013. >> >> For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, >> there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of >> candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was why >> we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about candidates. >> This year, we started making early calls to start thinking about nominating >> someone or standing for the elections for the 2014-2016 term. >> >> We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating >> yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please liaise >> with them and nominate them on the list. >> >> The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 to allow for elections. >> having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I thought I >> should add some reflections that may help those who are thinking of standing >> or to encourage people to stand. >> >> Reflections >> The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the facilitation >> of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and encouraging >> members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the Charter and >> providing a platform for advocacy. The role and responsibilities will be an >> opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes antagonistic views. It requires >> strength, courage and emotional intelligence to manage the responsibilities. >> For me personally, it has been an incredible opportunity learning about >> dealing with diverse voices and I can say that I have learnt the discipline >> of restraint where at times I have had to hold back my view because >> facilitators have to have some form of neutrality and act in the best >> interests of the IGC community. >> >> Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the >> assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs to be >> clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the majority before >> deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time for Internet >> Governance. >> >> The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC >> community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally with >> the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. >> >> Current Nominations Received >> >> Deirdre Williams >> x >> x >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in >>> standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to >>> nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So >>> that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to >>> choose from. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>> >>> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 06:23:42 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:53:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <528DED3E.3080804@ITforChange.net> On 11/21/2013 05:08 AM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > >> Funding an organization that is entirely at cross purposes policy >> wise with them, and/or seems to feel IG is best served by attacking >> ICANN at every opportunity doesn't appear to make as much sense as it >> should. > Suresh, you are just giving arguments to whoever ask for scrutiny on > how the funding flows.. :-) > Organizations to serve public matters are not supposed anyway to > discriminate the public in function of such arguments! > Suresh, thanks for your mail from me as well... You have clearly expressed the very concerns some of us on the list have had regarding funding... That who pays the piper should call (or calls) the tune... Norbert's very pertinent questions may have been evaded, but by avoiding the difficult questions on funding transparency, we may be further undermining CS. When as a response to Norbert, some have said 'this issue is important, but now is not the time...' I feel concerned that this may be seen as a tactic to avoid/evade scrutiny, (which it may very well not be). If now is not the time, when is the time? We will only get closer to the Brazil meet, so it will only get more and more 'difficult' or 'inconvenient' to ask these questions and there is a big danger there - Governments have political power, business sector has market/economic power. CS has neither - and perhaps can lay claim only to some kind of moral power.... by being able to imagine the normative and persuading the other sectors towards that. If we are afraid to ask tough questions of ourselves, we loose the authority to ask others the same regards Guru -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Nov 21 06:37:30 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:07:30 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> Andrew I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do. Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue. my responses below... On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel > I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it.... > that straw men are being put up to be knocked down so I wanted to pick > up on this and set out my own thoughts. > You think speaking about OECD and CoE's (council of europe) 'global' public policy activities is a straw man? Well. one of the most pointed interventions made by Carlos during the recent WGEC meeting was that developing countries resent global IG done through processes like the CoE's cybercrime treaty which was first negotiated among a few countries, and then sought to be exported to others.... Brazil took the floor to support Carlos' intervention. Later, India referred to OECD developing Principles for Internet Policy Making. You think they were all putting up strawmen? I am disappointed that such an important position of developing countries against developed country based "global' public policy making, especially in the IG space, is being dismissed in such a summary and disdainful manner. > Firstly I’m not aware of anyone defending the OECD process of policy > making as the model we should follow – maybe I missed that on the > thread at some point – but it passed me by. People have been > supportive of the changes it has made to become more multi-stakeholder > ( rather than promoting it as the example of best practice) - > certainly no-one I know who argues for a multi-stakeholder approach > has positively supported the OECD’s approach – which in any case > requires voluntary adoption of standards rather than produce anything > binding. > > With the Council of Europe, this is a regional treaty body – not > global – which was created in the wake of fascism in 1945 to promote > human rights and democracy in Europe. It has a specific geographic > focus and essentially sets out standards which it is for nation states > to adopt – it does bind member states who have to consent to the > norms. It sits alongside the African Union and the Inter-American > Commission in this respect (both of which have developing countries in > their membership). In the field of human rights protection, with the > court in Strasbourg, it has proved very effective and its data > protection provisions have also been helpful. Human rights is part of > its DNA - but it is not a governance model for the internet and no one > I know claims it to be. > > The concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to run the > internet > What kind of state based body to 'run the Internet' you allude to, and who proposed it.... BTW, do you think that OECD by making Internet policy principles 'runs the Internet', or US through its ICANN/IANA oversight role, and jurisprudence over the companies which are 70 percent of the Internet, 'runs the Internet'..... Or, is it that such loaded terms are to be used only for processes that may include poor, developing countries? (Accompanied by shutting up any counter-discourse by calling it various names as your email is full of...) > is not that it would give developing countries a voice – that’s a goal > we all share – but because the example of bodies like the Human Rights > Council, which has become a place where governments seek to prevent > human rights standards from being enforced, rather than a place where > positive policies are pursued. Of course the HRC has done good work – > but it is a relentless diplomatic battle to hold the line. In the > most recent elections Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba were all > elected unopposed and I can tell you that very few people in the broad > human rights movement are comforted by that. > Yes that is a problem. However, no less is the problem of US's dominance and role in OECD, TPP, kind of global IG processes, for instance its insisting that net neutrality should be removed from OECD principles, and it pushing in overly strong IP protections and some clear pointers to private policing by ISPs in the same Principles document.... We cannot just keep using the 2-3 names of these above countries that you mention to discredit anything and everything that the UN or developing countries in general do or propose. Speaking of repeating old hackneyed arguments, as you do below, this one would any day take the cake in global IG space, > > My feeling about Best Bits is that the majority of participants want > to figure out – working collaboratively and constructively – how we > can contribute to the development of an open internet that supports > democracy and human rights. > I have no doubt that this is what we and networks that we work with are most interested in.... Democracy btw does not admit vote or veto power for business reps in public policy making . And human rights go much beyond FoE and privacy and cover so many social, economic and cultural issues... > Most of us think that involving all stakeholders is crucial to that > though we all recognise the difficulties inherent in such a process. > I suggest that those of us who want to undertake this work get on with > it and those who want something else get on with that. It’s a big > world and there’s room for all opinions. > IT for Change works closely on the ground to promote participatory democracy In India, I would not get into pressing that point too much here... BTW, since you may have missed it, just one thing - it is we who suggested adding 'Multi-stakeholder' (MS) term to the erstwhile Advisory Group of the IGF, it is we who worked with India on the famous "India proposal' during the meetings of WG on IGF improvements and actually were able to get almost all developing countries to agree to strengthening IGF (at least over the first year of WG IGF), whereas you may want to check more on what the so called MSists were doing then.... 'India proposal' and ITfC's proposal strongly pushed for recs giving power for the IGF, strengthening MAG to a much more substantial role, including working through WGs and so on..... You dont think that would amount to working on strengthening the multistakeholder approach.... Just because you have created a strawman of multilateralism versus MSism, are you suggesting that MLists, *as defined by you* should move elsewhere and this is a space for MSists to work..... > I also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has been a > way in which many new people have been able to enter the conversation > about IG and internet policy issues but that there is a danger if the > sterile nature of current discussions continues, they will driven > away. (Several participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go > the way of the IGC.) I think we have thoroughly aired the different > views on multi-lateral v multi-stakeholder so can we move on and do > the work we each want to do > No, we havent... But if you think we are all clear about what is MSism and what is MLism (whereby, as you say, we should move on), may I ask you whether MSism includes business reps voting in making actual decisions about substantive public policy issues. A simple direct question, and if you are not clear about any element of it I can clarify... If your answer is yes, I am not a MSist, if it is no, I am as MSist as you or anyone else is. If you give me an answer to this question, I promise I'll move on -- depending on your answer with the MS brigade or the MList one... > though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they > want. > Thanks, but your email really doesnt sound you are too happy that I put my side of what I think were and are important issues following the WGEC meeting, and also as we move forward. > I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I > will be supporting something different to you. > As per the above, I really do not know what do you mean by an inter-gov model.... If its identifying feature is that business reps will not be able to vote or veto with regard to substantive public policy issues, then yes I am proposing an inter-gov model (for me, all stakeholders should be an important part of all pre decision making processes, which for me is an MS approach)..... And since you say, you'd support 'something different', may I know whether in your model business will have vote/ veto power in terms of substantive public policy matters... > > In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy > leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old > voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years > or more. > How many different ways you have used to tell me not to present my views :). It is really ingenious of you. parminder > > So I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the adage of > Jon Postel – be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what > you send > > *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org* > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* 19 November 2013 14:13 > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > *Subject:* [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of > India to the WGEC > > On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear Anja > > Thank you for this. > > I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could > not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed > this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change > proposal. > > Could it be differences between ministries? > > > No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document > with the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to > the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also my > understanding that this position was developed and approved by an > inter ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of > all the relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest level > clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to rest... > > While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets > demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good > people of the world seem to live and breathe..... > > Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is > just proposing to have done by including all countries of the world > that OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers, Information > and Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with only the richest > countries of the world being involved. Is there anything wrong with > it? If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current > 'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes global policy > and if the differences are on this point, lets discuss it.) > > Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a > political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am completely > unable to understand how people and organisations that rather > enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet policy > making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model whenever > it is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been taken from > the devil himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start > getting thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations ever > protested against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE, and the > such) making Internet policies (for the whole world)? Especially when > these rich country clubs dont even include all countries, excluding > all those countries whose only fault is that they arent rich? That > would be something for civil society to be protesting about.... > > Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the > multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country > institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told, > no, in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil > society reps do not participate in actual decision making. They will > be told that business and civil society vote or veto on substantive > decision making on public policy issues will never never be accepted. > Just forget it (and go read your political science books) ! Civil > society persons know this will be the response, and they dont want to > stand there looking a bit sheepish! > > So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people put > this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy' to > developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for new > institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic deficit in > the governance to the Internet, which is today a major instrument of > re-distributing all kinds of power? > > I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be given > the answer to the above question - why these double standards between > developed countries and the developing ones? Why does the meaning of > multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an > institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's > CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model > presented by India takes the demonic colors of multilateralism... Any > takers? > > Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of > global IG... > > > parminder > > > > > I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, > the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully > cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications. > > Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific > matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works > will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are > just a but left out of the loop. > > But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, > including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder > participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly > put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip > service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable > also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their > speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by > multi-stakeholder IG. > > That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear > commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of > proposed solutions. > > Anriette > > On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > > As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these > lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for > EC India made to the WGEC (see below this message and here: > http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/ > ) > > Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP > proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of > Communications and Information Technology, in particular had > become increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder > models for Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the > WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government again tabled a > proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be established > under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP. > > Comments most welcome. > > Best, > Anja > > > Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to > take over the governance of the Internet? > > > by Anja Kovacs > > /Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation give the strong impression that this is indeed the case. / > > In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > (WGEC) , which met for > the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government > recommended the following: > > The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a > multilateral body for formulation of international > Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should > include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and > international organisations in advisory capacity within their > respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG > report. Such body should also develop globally applicable > principles on public policy issues associated with the > coordination and management of critical Internet resources. > > Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active > within the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly > disagreed with India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee > for Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this > proposal thus seems to have been revived. > > Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table > is problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to > endorse governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet > governance, whose dominance needs to be established at the expense > of other stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under > consideration, other stakeholders will only be given an advisory > role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed > to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these > definitions - especially where the role of civil society is > concerned - are outmoded is something that has been recognised > widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the > debates around the role definitions of the Tunis Agenda, but said > nothing about how these debates might affect its proposal. > > Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC > only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian > civil society representative. The latter took with this a position > quite radically different from other Indian members of civil > society active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of > global civil society in this field, who believe that a > multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way forward. > > Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that > there might at times be space for multilateralism within this > multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group > comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the > right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new > treaty, then from that point onwards, governments would take over > as negotiating treaties is their job. > > However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones > currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in > a multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, > including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to > go forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the > necessity of government dominance in the policy process, > irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement > only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other > stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it > also leaves the Internet policy making process much more > vulnerable to the vagaries of global geopolitics. > > The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible > also for developing globally applicable principles on public > policy issues associated with the coordination and management of > critical Internet resources is particularly surprising in this > regard. So far, the coordination and management of critical > Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN > that, though not without their flaws, are already multistakeholder > in their functioning. To think that principles that should govern > the work of these bodies can be formulated or effectively applied > without a central involvement of all stakeholders already involved > in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be said, > conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed. > > The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations > on how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation > contained in the Tunis Agenda. > > India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body > that would privilege governments in the making of international > Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic > consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been > established by the government precisely for such purposes in > August of this year. > > For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a > surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of > Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed > over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance > of multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and > his own commitment to this model. > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 21 07:03:23 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:33:23 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1B1B6C42-A90F-47ED-B425-52D992EB944E@hserus.net> Best practices are best practices - regardless of the source. To complain that an advocated set of best practices was developed without a country's consultation, and then refuse to engage any further in discussion, let alone adoption of those best practices, would be foolhardy indeed. Especially when the report in question is from an organization of the OECD's caliber. For the record, several of their position papers and initiatives relevant to cybercrime [which is the one part of the OECD's work I have focused on] pays far more than mere lip service to actual multistakeholderism, and in open, frank engagement with all stakeholders. Beyond that, what Andrew said. And, in the immortal words of Hamlet in Act III Scene 2, "doth protest too much, methinks" applies to your reply below. --srs (iPad) > On 21-Nov-2013, at 17:07, parminder wrote: > > Andrew > > I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do. > > Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue. > > my responses below... > >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> >> I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel > > I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it.... > >> that straw men are being put up to be knocked down so I wanted to pick up on this and set out my own thoughts. > > You think speaking about OECD and CoE's (council of europe) 'global' public policy activities is a straw man? Well. one of the most pointed interventions made by Carlos during the recent WGEC meeting was that developing countries resent global IG done through processes like the CoE's cybercrime treaty which was first negotiated among a few countries, and then sought to be exported to others.... Brazil took the floor to support Carlos' intervention. Later, India referred to OECD developing Principles for Internet Policy Making. You think they were all putting up strawmen? I am disappointed that such an important position of developing countries against developed country based "global' public policy making, especially in the IG space, is being dismissed in such a summary and disdainful manner. > > >> Firstly I’m not aware of anyone defending the OECD process of policy making as the model we should follow – maybe I missed that on the thread at some point – but it passed me by. People have been supportive of the changes it has made to become more multi-stakeholder ( rather than promoting it as the example of best practice) - certainly no-one I know who argues for a multi-stakeholder approach has positively supported the OECD’s approach – which in any case requires voluntary adoption of standards rather than produce anything binding. >> >> With the Council of Europe, this is a regional treaty body – not global – which was created in the wake of fascism in 1945 to promote human rights and democracy in Europe. It has a specific geographic focus and essentially sets out standards which it is for nation states to adopt – it does bind member states who have to consent to the norms. It sits alongside the African Union and the Inter-American Commission in this respect (both of which have developing countries in their membership). In the field of human rights protection, with the court in Strasbourg, it has proved very effective and its data protection provisions have also been helpful. Human rights is part of its DNA - but it is not a governance model for the internet and no one I know claims it to be. >> >> The concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to run the internet > > What kind of state based body to 'run the Internet' you allude to, and who proposed it.... BTW, do you think that OECD by making Internet policy principles 'runs the Internet', or US through its ICANN/IANA oversight role, and jurisprudence over the companies which are 70 percent of the Internet, 'runs the Internet'..... Or, is it that such loaded terms are to be used only for processes that may include poor, developing countries? (Accompanied by shutting up any counter-discourse by calling it various names as your email is full of...) > >> is not that it would give developing countries a voice – that’s a goal we all share – but because the example of bodies like the Human Rights Council, which has become a place where governments seek to prevent human rights standards from being enforced, rather than a place where positive policies are pursued. Of course the HRC has done good work – but it is a relentless diplomatic battle to hold the line. In the most recent elections Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba were all elected unopposed and I can tell you that very few people in the broad human rights movement are comforted by that. > > Yes that is a problem. However, no less is the problem of US's dominance and role in OECD, TPP, kind of global IG processes, for instance its insisting that net neutrality should be removed from OECD principles, and it pushing in overly strong IP protections and some clear pointers to private policing by ISPs in the same Principles document.... We cannot just keep using the 2-3 names of these above countries that you mention to discredit anything and everything that the UN or developing countries in general do or propose. Speaking of repeating old hackneyed arguments, as you do below, this one would any day take the cake in global IG space, >> >> My feeling about Best Bits is that the majority of participants want to figure out – working collaboratively and constructively – how we can contribute to the development of an open internet that supports democracy and human rights. > > I have no doubt that this is what we and networks that we work with are most interested in.... Democracy btw does not admit vote or veto power for business reps in public policy making . And human rights go much beyond FoE and privacy and cover so many social, economic and cultural issues... > >> Most of us think that involving all stakeholders is crucial to that though we all recognise the difficulties inherent in such a process. I suggest that those of us who want to undertake this work get on with it and those who want something else get on with that. It’s a big world and there’s room for all opinions. > > IT for Change works closely on the ground to promote participatory democracy In India, I would not get into pressing that point too much here... BTW, since you may have missed it, just one thing - it is we who suggested adding 'Multi-stakeholder' (MS) term to the erstwhile Advisory Group of the IGF, it is we who worked with India on the famous "India proposal' during the meetings of WG on IGF improvements and actually were able to get almost all developing countries to agree to strengthening IGF (at least over the first year of WG IGF), whereas you may want to check more on what the so called MSists were doing then.... 'India proposal' and ITfC's proposal strongly pushed for recs giving power for the IGF, strengthening MAG to a much more substantial role, including working through WGs and so on..... You dont think that would amount to working on strengthening the multistakeholder approach.... > > Just because you have created a strawman of multilateralism versus MSism, are you suggesting that MLists, *as defined by you* should move elsewhere and this is a space for MSists to work..... > >> >> I also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has been a way in which many new people have been able to enter the conversation about IG and internet policy issues but that there is a danger if the sterile nature of current discussions continues, they will driven away. (Several participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go the way of the IGC.) I think we have thoroughly aired the different views on multi-lateral v multi-stakeholder so can we move on and do the work we each want to do > > No, we havent... But if you think we are all clear about what is MSism and what is MLism (whereby, as you say, we should move on), may I ask you whether MSism includes business reps voting in making actual decisions about substantive public policy issues. A simple direct question, and if you are not clear about any element of it I can clarify... If your answer is yes, I am not a MSist, if it is no, I am as MSist as you or anyone else is. If you give me an answer to this question, I promise I'll move on -- depending on your answer with the MS brigade or the MList one... > > >> though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they want. > > Thanks, but your email really doesnt sound you are too happy that I put my side of what I think were and are important issues following the WGEC meeting, and also as we move forward. > >> I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I will be supporting something different to you. > > As per the above, I really do not know what do you mean by an inter-gov model.... If its identifying feature is that business reps will not be able to vote or veto with regard to substantive public policy issues, then yes I am proposing an inter-gov model (for me, all stakeholders should be an important part of all pre decision making processes, which for me is an MS approach)..... And since you say, you'd support 'something different', may I know whether in your model business will have vote/ veto power in terms of substantive public policy matters... >> >> In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years or more. > > How many different ways you have used to tell me not to present my views :). It is really ingenious of you. > > parminder >> So I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the adage of Jon Postel – be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send >> >> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Executive Director >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >> gp-digital.org >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder >> Sent: 19 November 2013 14:13 >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, >> Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC >> >> >> On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Dear Anja >> >> Thank you for this. >> >> I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change proposal. >> >> Could it be differences between ministries? >> >> No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document with the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also my understanding that this position was developed and approved by an inter ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of all the relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest level clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to rest... >> >> While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good people of the world seem to live and breathe..... >> >> Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is just proposing to have done by including all countries of the world that OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers, Information and Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with only the richest countries of the world being involved. Is there anything wrong with it? If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current 'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes global policy and if the differences are on this point, lets discuss it.) >> >> Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am completely unable to understand how people and organisations that rather enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet policy making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model whenever it is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been taken from the devil himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start getting thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations ever protested against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE, and the such) making Internet policies (for the whole world)? Especially when these rich country clubs dont even include all countries, excluding all those countries whose only fault is that they arent rich? That would be something for civil society to be protesting about.... >> >> Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told, no, in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil society reps do not participate in actual decision making. They will be told that business and civil society vote or veto on substantive decision making on public policy issues will never never be accepted. Just forget it (and go read your political science books) ! Civil society persons know this will be the response, and they dont want to stand there looking a bit sheepish! >> >> So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people put this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy' to developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for new institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic deficit in the governance to the Internet, which is today a major instrument of re-distributing all kinds of power? >> >> I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be given the answer to the above question - why these double standards between developed countries and the developing ones? Why does the meaning of multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model presented by India takes the demonic colors of multilateralism... Any takers? >> >> Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of global IG... >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications. >> >> Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are just a but left out of the loop. >> >> But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by multi-stakeholder IG. >> >> That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed solutions. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India made to the WGEC (see below this message and here: http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/ ) >> >> Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder models for Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government again tabled a proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be established under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP. >> >> Comments most welcome. >> >> Best, >> Anja >> >> Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take over the governance of the Internet? >> >> by Anja Kovacs >> >> Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation give the strong impression that this is indeed the case. >> >> In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC), which met for the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government recommended the following: >> >> The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. >> >> Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have been revived. >> >> Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose dominance needs to be established at the expense of other stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other stakeholders will only be given an advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially where the role of civil society is concerned - are outmoded is something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect its proposal. >> >> Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil society representative. The latter took with this a position quite radically different from other Indian members of civil society active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in this field, who believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way forward. >> >> Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there might at times be space for multilateralism within this multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new treaty, then from that point onwards, governments would take over as negotiating treaties is their job. >> >> However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of government dominance in the policy process, irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it also leaves the Internet policy making process much more vulnerable to the vagaries of global geopolitics. >> >> The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also for developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without their flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To think that principles that should govern the work of these bodies can be formulated or effectively applied without a central involvement of all stakeholders already involved in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be said, conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed. >> >> The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis Agenda. >> >> India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that would privilege governments in the making of international Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been established by the government precisely for such purposes in August of this year. >> >> For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and his own commitment to this model. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 21 07:03:35 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:33:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: <528DED3E.3080804@ITforChange.net> References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> <528DED3E.3080804@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <561C2813-95FC-4ADC-A2F5-926D209B9E24@hserus.net> Transparency in funding is something I will endorse. As for governments, or public organizations, they do have an obligation to remain neutral when allocating funding. However, it would be a very strange government indeed that funds an organization that actively seeks to destabilize it. --srs (iPad) >> On 21-Nov-2013, at 16:53, Guru गुरु wrote: >> >>> On 11/21/2013 05:08 AM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: >>> >>> Funding an organization that is entirely at cross purposes policy wise with them, and/or seems to feel IG is best served by attacking ICANN at every opportunity doesn't appear to make as much sense as it should. >> Suresh, you are just giving arguments to whoever ask for scrutiny on how the funding flows.. :-) >> Organizations to serve public matters are not supposed anyway to discriminate the public in function of such arguments! > > Suresh, thanks for your mail from me as well... You have clearly expressed the very concerns some of us on the list have had regarding funding... That who pays the piper should call (or calls) the tune... > > Norbert's very pertinent questions may have been evaded, but by avoiding the difficult questions on funding transparency, we may be further undermining CS. > > When as a response to Norbert, some have said 'this issue is important, but now is not the time...' I feel concerned that this may be seen as a tactic to avoid/evade scrutiny, (which it may very well not be). > > If now is not the time, when is the time? We will only get closer to the Brazil meet, so it will only get more and more 'difficult' or 'inconvenient' to ask these questions and there is a big danger there - Governments have political power, business sector has market/economic power. CS has neither - and perhaps can lay claim only to some kind of moral power.... by being able to imagine the normative and persuading the other sectors towards that. > > If we are afraid to ask tough questions of ourselves, we loose the authority to ask others the same > > regards > Guru > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Nov 21 07:13:59 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:13:59 -0300 Subject: [governance] Update: Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7A0D63E2-C7E4-4BCD-95EA-5541364B9F64@gmail.com> Dear Alex, Thank you we confirm receiving two nominations yours and also by Sarah Kiden offline. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Nov 21, 2013, at 7:19 AM, Alex Comninos wrote: > > Dear All > > I would like to Nominate Mwendwa Kivuva. > > Kind regards, > Alex Comninos > ... > Alex Comninos | doctoral candidate > Department of Geography, Justus Liebig University, Gießen > Skype: alexcomninos5 | http:// comninos.org | Twitter: @alexcomninos > > PGP Fingerprint: 24CC 4827 A352 D9A1 2E81 4E95 42D0 D8DB 0C46 425B > PGP Public Key: > http://pool.sks-keyservers.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x42D0D8DB0C46425B > I intend to become less dependent on Gmail/Google, so note my new > alternative email: alex.comninos at riseup.net > > > On 12 November 2013 23:30, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> This is an update to advise that so far we have two nominations for the >> coordinator position:- >> >> 1) Deirdre Williams >> 2) Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> We welcome more nominations. Kindly note that Coordinators, can encourage >> people to stand but cannot directly nominate as we will be facilitating the >> elections process so in the interest of accountability and transparency, we >> have to maintain our neutrality. >> >> For those who are thinking of standing in the elections, please refer to my >> email below. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> (soon to be outgoing co-coordinator) >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> Further to the June 6, 2013 notice for calls for coordinator, we are happy >>> to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on December 1, >>> 2013. >>> >>> For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, >>> there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of >>> candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was why >>> we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about candidates. >>> This year, we started making early calls to start thinking about nominating >>> someone or standing for the elections for the 2014-2016 term. >>> >>> We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating >>> yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please liaise >>> with them and nominate them on the list. >>> >>> The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 to allow for elections. >>> having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I thought I >>> should add some reflections that may help those who are thinking of standing >>> or to encourage people to stand. >>> >>> Reflections >>> The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the facilitation >>> of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and encouraging >>> members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the Charter and >>> providing a platform for advocacy. The role and responsibilities will be an >>> opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes antagonistic views. It requires >>> strength, courage and emotional intelligence to manage the responsibilities. >>> For me personally, it has been an incredible opportunity learning about >>> dealing with diverse voices and I can say that I have learnt the discipline >>> of restraint where at times I have had to hold back my view because >>> facilitators have to have some form of neutrality and act in the best >>> interests of the IGC community. >>> >>> Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the >>> assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs to be >>> clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the majority before >>> deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time for Internet >>> Governance. >>> >>> The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC >>> community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally with >>> the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. >>> >>> Current Nominations Received >>> >>> Deirdre Williams >>> x >>> x >>> >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in >>>> standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to >>>> nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So >>>> that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to >>>> choose from. >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 07:21:57 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:51:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Big Data - big problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <528DFAE5.4060107@itforchange.net> On Thursday 21 November 2013 02:55 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I think corporate and governmental surveillance and unregulated use of > our personal data is a huge issue. This article from Bruce Schneier > gives a lot of good background on how bad things are - in an earlier > essay he likened the problem to the pollution of the early industrial > era which went unregulated until it became a massive uncontrollable > problem. > We really do have to get on top of this one - and unfortunately large > internet corporations whose profit is dependent on using our personal > data and governments of differing political persuasions who are part > of alliances that give unregulated permission to do anything to their > surveillance communities are not going to help. Big problem... > http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/20/opinion/schneier-stalker-economy/index.html Shows how meaningless the term 'self regulation' is, which was bandied around for so long, and many still do... Also shows why big business so desperately wants a seat at the decision making table of Internet related policies, lest someone tries to spoil its party. Civil society must seriously consider what they are contributing to in asking for business to be given a seat at the table for deciding Internet related policies.... And not push away such debates simply as seeking multi-lateralism. We must amend the terms of the debate and set up progressive and democratic frameworks to discuss IG. parminder > Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 21 07:28:49 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 06:28:49 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Big Data - big problem In-Reply-To: <528DFAE5.4060107@itforchange.net> References: <528DFAE5.4060107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20131121122849.GA18023@hserus.net> parminder [21/11/13 17:51 +0530]: >Shows how meaningless the term 'self regulation' is, which was >bandied around for so long, and many still do... I have seen where self regulation has actually worked in Industry. And I have seen cases - as I dare say many others here have - where it hasn't quite worked, or has been subverted. Trying to tar all self regulation with the same brush, or all industry initiatives as sinister by default is not what I would call "progressive" to be very honest. It is a regressive throwback to the days when industrialists were robber barons, and leftist civil society was typically anarchist, focused on riots and assasination rather than disrupting meetings and assasinating characters. Big business, as you put it, has far more than a stake, they have billions invested in the internet, and build and operate substantial parts of it. That sort of skin in the game absolutely does give them the right to be at the table. 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Nov 21 09:04:11 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:34:11 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on > this particular theme. > > I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life > to support the free expression of views. But I want BB to be a > constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not > spiral down as other networks have done. > It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and you still are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you want to sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff of ' old views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man argument... No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to substantive points.... > My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but > that I have not seem anyone _in civil society_ defend those > institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not > what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you. > You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber crime convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do these things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels. Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies.... When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the number of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write one against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my question... One doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending them - it is enough that CS groups participate in these activties and endorse their outcomes (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively being promoted for global uptake - are we ready to write a statement against such an undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series are of the same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including your organisation participated in the process. But did we say that it is not right to not treat all countries at the same level..... It is these questions that would keep coming from the global South.... > When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human > Rights Council > No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I cant see HRC being such a body.... > – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the > current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that > leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast > detriment of human rights. > The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global internet related policies.... > > Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are > satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they > are. I think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that > recognised the legitimate interests of states, companies and users and > I want that arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in > its DNA. > > I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with > others in the next few months. My preference is for a dispersed > arrangement in which different interests are balanced, but will > likely comprise internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and > national governments, with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role. > On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and CoE, there is no global body that can anchor norm building and facilitate treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies. > But I’m looking forward to others’views. > > And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to > people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that > they do not. > That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder > It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people. We > all have an obligation to build this community, and this means > thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our > rights to speak freely. > > *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org* > > *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* 21 November 2013 11:38 > *To:* Andrew Puddephatt > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government > of India to the WGEC > > Andrew > > I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not > quite sure that is a good thing to do. > > Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings > of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of > them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my > organisation which is also quite fair because we are all in a public > space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart > from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think > IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which > they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your > view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below > being my very first email on the issue. > > my responses below... > > On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel > > > I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who > are engaging in it.... > > > that straw men are being put up to be knocked down so I wanted to pick > up on this and set out my own thoughts. > > > You think speaking about OECD and CoE's (council of europe) 'global' > public policy activities is a straw man? Well. one of the most pointed > interventions made by Carlos during the recent WGEC meeting was that > developing countries resent global IG done through processes like the > CoE's cybercrime treaty which was first negotiated among a few > countries, and then sought to be exported to others.... Brazil took > the floor to support Carlos' intervention. Later, India referred to > OECD developing Principles for Internet Policy Making. You think they > were all putting up strawmen? I am disappointed that such an important > position of developing countries against developed country based > "global' public policy making, especially in the IG space, is being > dismissed in such a summary and disdainful manner. > > > > Firstly I’m not aware of anyone defending the OECD process of policy > making as the model we should follow – maybe I missed that on the > thread at some point – but it passed me by. People have been > supportive of the changes it has made to become more multi-stakeholder > ( rather than promoting it as the example of best practice) - > certainly no-one I know who argues for a multi-stakeholder approach > has positively supported the OECD’s approach – which in any case > requires voluntary adoption of standards rather than produce anything > binding. > > With the Council of Europe, this is a regional treaty body – not > global – which was created in the wake of fascism in 1945 to promote > human rights and democracy in Europe. It has a specific geographic > focus and essentially sets out standards which it is for nation states > to adopt – it does bind member states who have to consent to the > norms. It sits alongside the African Union and the Inter-American > Commission in this respect (both of which have developing countries in > their membership). In the field of human rights protection, with the > court in Strasbourg, it has proved very effective and its data > protection provisions have also been helpful. Human rights is part of > its DNA - but it is not a governance model for the internet and no one > I know claims it to be. > > The concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to run the > internet > > > What kind of state based body to 'run the Internet' you allude to, and > who proposed it.... BTW, do you think that OECD by making Internet > policy principles 'runs the Internet', or US through its ICANN/IANA > oversight role, and jurisprudence over the companies which are 70 > percent of the Internet, 'runs the Internet'..... Or, is it that such > loaded terms are to be used only for processes that may include poor, > developing countries? (Accompanied by shutting up any > counter-discourse by calling it various names as your email is full of...) > > > is not that it would give developing countries a voice – that’s a goal > we all share – but because the example of bodies like the Human Rights > Council, which has become a place where governments seek to prevent > human rights standards from being enforced, rather than a place where > positive policies are pursued. Of course the HRC has done good work – > but it is a relentless diplomatic battle to hold the line. In the > most recent elections Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba were all > elected unopposed and I can tell you that very few people in the broad > human rights movement are comforted by that. > > > Yes that is a problem. However, no less is the problem of US's > dominance and role in OECD, TPP, kind of global IG processes, for > instance its insisting that net neutrality should be removed from OECD > principles, and it pushing in overly strong IP protections and some > clear pointers to private policing by ISPs in the same Principles > document.... We cannot just keep using the 2-3 names of these above > countries that you mention to discredit anything and everything that > the UN or developing countries in general do or propose. Speaking of > repeating old hackneyed arguments, as you do below, this one would any > day take the cake in global IG space, > > My feeling about Best Bits is that the majority of participants want > to figure out – working collaboratively and constructively – how we > can contribute to the development of an open internet that supports > democracy and human rights. > > > I have no doubt that this is what we and networks that we work with > are most interested in.... Democracy btw does not admit vote or veto > power for business reps in public policy making . And human rights go > much beyond FoE and privacy and cover so many social, economic and > cultural issues... > > > Most of us think that involving all stakeholders is crucial to that > though we all recognise the difficulties inherent in such a process. > I suggest that those of us who want to undertake this work get on with > it and those who want something else get on with that. It’s a big > world and there’s room for all opinions. > > > IT for Change works closely on the ground to promote participatory > democracy In India, I would not get into pressing that point too much > here... BTW, since you may have missed it, just one thing - it is we > who suggested adding 'Multi-stakeholder' (MS) term to the erstwhile > Advisory Group of the IGF, it is we who worked with India on the > famous "India proposal' during the meetings of WG on IGF improvements > and actually were able to get almost all developing countries to agree > to strengthening IGF (at least over the first year of WG IGF), whereas > you may want to check more on what the so called MSists were doing > then.... 'India proposal' and ITfC's proposal strongly pushed for recs > giving power for the IGF, strengthening MAG to a much more substantial > role, including working through WGs and so on..... You dont think that > would amount to working on strengthening the multistakeholder approach.... > > Just because you have created a strawman of multilateralism versus > MSism, are you suggesting that MLists, *as defined by you* should move > elsewhere and this is a space for MSists to work..... > > > I also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has been a > way in which many new people have been able to enter the conversation > about IG and internet policy issues but that there is a danger if the > sterile nature of current discussions continues, they will driven > away. (Several participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go > the way of the IGC.) I think we have thoroughly aired the different > views on multi-lateral v multi-stakeholder so can we move on and do > the work we each want to do > > > No, we havent... But if you think we are all clear about what is MSism > and what is MLism (whereby, as you say, we should move on), may I ask > you whether MSism includes business reps voting in making actual > decisions about substantive public policy issues. A simple direct > question, and if you are not clear about any element of it I can > clarify... If your answer is yes, I am not a MSist, if it is no, I am > as MSist as you or anyone else is. If you give me an answer to this > question, I promise I'll move on -- depending on your answer with the > MS brigade or the MList one... > > > > though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they > want. > > > Thanks, but your email really doesnt sound you are too happy that I > put my side of what I think were and are important issues following > the WGEC meeting, and also as we move forward. > > > I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I will > be supporting something different to you. > > > As per the above, I really do not know what do you mean by an > inter-gov model.... If its identifying feature is that business reps > will not be able to vote or veto with regard to substantive public > policy issues, then yes I am proposing an inter-gov model (for me, all > stakeholders should be an important part of all pre decision making > processes, which for me is an MS approach)..... And since you say, > you'd support 'something different', may I know whether in your model > business will have vote/ veto power in terms of substantive public > policy matters... > > In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy > leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old > voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years > or more. > > > How many different ways you have used to tell me not to present my > views :). It is really ingenious of you. > > parminder > > So I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the adage of > Jon Postel – be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what > you send > > *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org* > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* 19 November 2013 14:13 > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; > <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > , > *Subject:* [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of > India to the WGEC > > On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear Anja > > Thank you for this. > > I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could > not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed > this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change > proposal. > > Could it be differences between ministries? > > > No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document > with the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to > the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also my > understanding that this position was developed and approved by an > inter ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of > all the relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest level > clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to rest... > > While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets > demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good > people of the world seem to live and breathe..... > > Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is > just proposing to have done by including all countries of the world > that OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers, Information > and Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with only the richest > countries of the world being involved. Is there anything wrong with > it? If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current > 'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes global policy > and if the differences are on this point, lets discuss it.) > > Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a > political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am completely > unable to understand how people and organisations that rather > enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet policy > making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model whenever > it is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been taken from > the devil himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start > getting thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations ever > protested against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE, and the > such) making Internet policies (for the whole world)? Especially when > these rich country clubs dont even include all countries, excluding > all those countries whose only fault is that they arent rich? That > would be something for civil society to be protesting about.... > > Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the > multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country > institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told, > no, in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil > society reps do not participate in actual decision making. They will > be told that business and civil society vote or veto on substantive > decision making on public policy issues will never never be accepted. > Just forget it (and go read your political science books) ! Civil > society persons know this will be the response, and they dont want to > stand there looking a bit sheepish! > > So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people put > this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy' to > developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for new > institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic deficit in > the governance to the Internet, which is today a major instrument of > re-distributing all kinds of power? > > I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be given > the answer to the above question - why these double standards between > developed countries and the developing ones? Why does the meaning of > multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an > institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's > CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model > presented by India takes the demonic colors of multilateralism... Any > takers? > > Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of > global IG... > > > parminder > > > > > > I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, > the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully > cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications. > > Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific > matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works > will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are > just a but left out of the loop. > > But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, > including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder > participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly > put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip > service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable > also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their > speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by > multi-stakeholder IG. > > That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear > commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of > proposed solutions. > > Anriette > > > On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > > As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these > lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for > EC India made to the WGEC (see below this message and here: > http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/ > ) > > Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP > proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of > Communications and Information Technology, in particular had > become increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder > models for Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the > WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government again tabled a > proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be established > under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP. > > Comments most welcome. > > Best, > Anja > > > Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to > take over the governance of the Internet? > > > by Anja Kovacs > > /Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation give the strong impression that this is indeed the case. / > > In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > (WGEC) , which met for > the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government > recommended the following: > > The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a > multilateral body for formulation of international > Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should > include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and > international organisations in advisory capacity within their > respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG > report. Such body should also develop globally applicable > principles on public policy issues associated with the > coordination and management of critical Internet resources. > > Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active > within the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly > disagreed with India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee > for Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this > proposal thus seems to have been revived. > > Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table > is problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to > endorse governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet > governance, whose dominance needs to be established at the expense > of other stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under > consideration, other stakeholders will only be given an advisory > role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed > to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these > definitions - especially where the role of civil society is > concerned - are outmoded is something that has been recognised > widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the > debates around the role definitions of the Tunis Agenda, but said > nothing about how these debates might affect its proposal. > > Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC > only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian > civil society representative. The latter took with this a position > quite radically different from other Indian members of civil > society active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of > global civil society in this field, who believe that a > multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way forward. > > Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that > there might at times be space for multilateralism within this > multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group > comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the > right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new > treaty, then from that point onwards, governments would take over > as negotiating treaties is their job. > > However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones > currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in > a multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, > including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to > go forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the > necessity of government dominance in the policy process, > irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement > only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other > stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it > also leaves the Internet policy making process much more > vulnerable to the vagaries of global geopolitics. > > The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible > also for developing globally applicable principles on public > policy issues associated with the coordination and management of > critical Internet resources is particularly surprising in this > regard. So far, the coordination and management of critical > Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN > that, though not without their flaws, are already multistakeholder > in their functioning. To think that principles that should govern > the work of these bodies can be formulated or effectively applied > without a central involvement of all stakeholders already involved > in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be said, > conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed. > > The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations > on how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation > contained in the Tunis Agenda. > > India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body > that would privilege governments in the making of international > Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic > consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been > established by the government precisely for such purposes in > August of this year. > > For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a > surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of > Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed > over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance > of multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and > his own commitment to this model. > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andersj at elon.edu Thu Nov 21 09:40:46 2013 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:40:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Big Data - big problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: +1, Ian. Many of the problems were also outlined in a Pew Internet report issued in 2012. I wrote the report. You can see the report and all of the raw content here: http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/expertsurveys/2012survey/future_Big_Data_2020.xhtml The Pew site with the report is here: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Future-of-Big-Data.aspx Janna Anderson Below is a short excerpt from the report that lists some of the survey respondents' criticisms of big data – keep in mind the survey was in the field in late 2011, prior to the closer scrutiny now being paid by all: … Some say the limitations of Big Data must be recognized Open access to tools and data “transparency” are necessary for people to provide information checks and balances. Are they enough? • “Big Data gives me hope about the possibilities of technology,” said Tom Hood, CEO of the Maryland Association of CPAs. “Transparency, accountability, and the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ are all possible with the advent of Big Data combined with the tools to access and analyze the data in real time.” Richard Lowenberg, director and broadband planner for the 1st-Mile Institute, urged, “Big Data should be developed within a context of openness and improved understandings of dynamic, complex whole ecosystems. There are difficult matters that must be addressed, which will take time and support, including: public- and private-sector entities agreeing to share data; providing frequently updated meta-data; openness and transparency; cost recovery; and technical standards.” The Internet of Things will diffuse intelligence, but lots of technical hurdles must be overcome. • Fred Hapgood, a tech consultant who ran MIT’s Nanosystems group in the 1990s, said, “I tend to think of the Internet of Things as multiplying points of interactivity—sensors and/or actuators—throughout the social landscape. As the cost of connectivity goes down the number of these points will go up, diffusing intelligence everywhere.” An anonymous respondent wrote, “With the right legal and normative framework, the Internet of Things should make an astounding contribution to human life. The biggest obstacles to success are technological and behavioral; we need a rapid conversion to IPv6, and we need cooperation among all stakeholders to make the Internet of Things work. We also need global standards, not just US standards and practices, which draw practical and effective lines about how such a data trove may and may not be used consistent with human rights.” Another anonymous survey participant said, “Apparently this 'Internet of Things' idea is beginning to encourage yet another round of cow-eyed Utopian thinking. Big Data will yield some successes and a lot of failures, and most people will continue merely to muddle along, hoping not to be mugged too frequently by the well-intentioned (or not) entrepreneurs and bureaucrats who delight in trying to use this shiny new toy to fix the world.” In the end, humans just won’t be able to keep up • Jeff Eisenach, managing director, Navigant Economics LLC, a consulting business, formerly a senior policy expert with the US Federal Trade Commission, had this to say: “Big Data will not be so big. Most data will remain proprietary, or reside in incompatible formats and inaccessible databases where it cannot be used in 'real time.' The gap between what is theoretically possible and what is done (in terms of using real-time data to understand and forecast cultural, economic, and social phenomena) will continue to grow.” Humans, rather than machines, will still be the most capable of extracting insight and making judgments using Big Data. Statistics can still lie. • “By 2020, most insights and significant advances will still be the result of trained, imaginative, inquisitive, and insightful minds,” wrote Donald G. Barnes, visiting professor at Guangxi University in China. David D. Burstein, founder of Generation18, a youth-run voter-engagement organization, said, “As long as the growth of Big Data is coupled with growth of refined curation and curators it will be an asset. Without those curators the data will become more and more plentiful, more overwhelming and [it will] confuse our political and social conversations by an overabundance of numbers that can make any point we want to make them make.” Those who see mostly negatives share the down side Take off the rose-colored glasses: Big Data has the potential for significant negative impacts that may be impossible to avoid. “How to Lie with the Internet of Things” will be a best-seller. • “There is a need to think a bit more about the distribution of the harms that flow from the rise of big, medium, and little data gatherers, brokers, and users,” observed communications expert Oscar Gandy. “If ‘Big Data’ could be used primarily for social benefit, rather than the pursuit of profit (and the social-control systems that support that effort), then I could ‘sign on’ to the data-driven future and its expression through the Internet of Things.” “We can now make catastrophic miscalculations in nanoseconds and broadcast them universally. We have lost the balance inherent in 'lag time,'” added Marcia Richards Suelzer, senior analyst at Wolters Kluwer An anonymous survey participant wrote, “Big Data will generate misinformation and will be manipulated by people or institutions to display the findings they want. The general public will not understand the underlying conflicts and will naively trust the output. This is already happening and will only get worse as Big Data continues to evolve.” Another anonymous respondent joked, “Upside: How to Lie with the Internet of Things becomes an underground bestseller.” We won’t have the human or technological capacity to analyze Big Data accurately and efficiently by 2020. • “A lot of 'Big Data' today is biased and missing context, as it's based on convenience samples or subsets,” said Dan Ness, principal research analyst at MetaFacts. “We're seeing valiant, yet misguided attempts to apply the deep datasets to things that have limited relevance or applicability. They're being stretched to answer the wrong questions. I'm optimistic that by 2020, this will be increasingly clear and there will be true information pioneers who will think outside the Big Data box and base decisions on a broader and balanced view. Instead of relying on the 'lamppost light,' they will develop and use the equivalent of focused flashlights.” Mark Watson, senior engineer for Netflix, said, “I expect this will be quite transformative for society, though perhaps not quite in just the next eight years.” And Christian Huitema, distinguished engineer with Microsoft, said, “It will take much more than ten years to master the extraction of actual knowledge from Big Data sets.” Respondents are concerned about the motives of governments and corporations, the entities that have the most data and the incentive to analyze it. Manipulation and surveillance are at the heart of their Big Data agendas. • “The world is too complicated to be usefully encompassed in such an undifferentiated Big Idea. Whose ‘Big Data’ are we talking about? Wall Street, Google, the NSA? I am small, so generally I do not like Big,” wrote John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org An anonymous survey participant wrote, “Data aggregation is growing today for two main purposes: National security apparatus and ever-more-focused marketing (including political) databases. Neither of these are intended for the benefit of individual network users but rather look at users as either potential terrorists or as buyers of goods and services.” Another anonymous respondent said, “Money will drive access to large data sets and the power needed to analyze and act on the results of the analysis. The end result will, in most cases, be more effective targeting of people with the goal of having them consume more goods, which I believe is a negative for society. I would not call that misuse, but I would call it a self-serving agenda.” Another wrote, “It is unquestionably a great time to be a mathematician who is thrilled by unwieldy data sets. While many can be used in constructive, positive ways to improve life and services for many, Big Data will predominantly be used to feed people ads based on their behavior and friends, to analyze risk potential for health and other forms of insurance, and to essentially compartmentalize people and expose them more intensely to fewer and fewer things.” The rich will profit from Big Data and the poor will not. • Brian Harvey, a lecturer at the University of California-Berkeley, wrote, “The collection of information is going to benefit the rich, at the expense of the poor. I suppose that for a few people that counts as a positive outcome, but your two choices should have been ‘will mostly benefit the rich’ or ‘will mostly benefit the poor,’ rather than ‘good for society’ and ‘bad for society.’ There's no such thing as ‘society.’ There's only wealth and poverty, and class struggle. And yes, I know about farmers in Africa using their cell phones to track prices for produce in the big cities. That's great, but it's not enough.” Frank Odasz, president of Lone Eagle Consulting, said, “The politics of control and the politics of appearances will continue to make the rich richer and diminish the grassroots and disenfranchised until the politics of transparency make it necessary for the top down to partner meaningfully with the bottom up in visible, measurable ways. The grassroots boom in bottom-up innovation will increasingly find new ways to self-organize as evidenced in 2011 by the Occupy Wall Street and Arab Spring movements.” Purposeful education about Big Data might include priming for the anticipation of manipulation. Maybe trust features can be built in. • Heywood Sloane, principal at CogniPower, said, “This isn't really a question about the Internet or Big Data—it's a question about who and how much people might abuse it (or anything else), intentionally or otherwise. That is a question that is always there—thus there is a need for a countervailing forces, competition, transparency, scrutiny, and/or other ways to guard against abuse. And then be prepared to misjudge sometimes.” “Never underestimate the stupidity and basic sinfulness of humanity,” reminded Tom Rule, educator, technology consultant, and musician based in Macon, Georgia. Barry Parr, owner and analyst for MediaSavvy, contributed this thought: “Better information is seldom the solution to any real-world social problems. It may be the solution to lots of business problems, but it's unlikely that the benefits will accrue to the public. We're more likely to lose privacy and freedom from the rise of Big Data.” And an anonymous respondent commented, “Data is misused today for many reasons, the solution is not to restrict the collection of data, but rather to raise the level of awareness and education about how data can be misused and how to be confident that data is being fairly represented and actually answers the questions you think it does.” From: Ian Peter > Reply-To: Ian Peter > Date: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 4:25 PM To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Subject: [bestbits] Big Data - big problem I think corporate and governmental surveillance and unregulated use of our personal data is a huge issue. This article from Bruce Schneier gives a lot of good background on how bad things are - in an earlier essay he likened the problem to the pollution of the early industrial era which went unregulated until it became a massive uncontrollable problem. We really do have to get on top of this one - and unfortunately large internet corporations whose profit is dependent on using our personal data and governments of differing political persuasions who are part of alliances that give unregulated permission to do anything to their surveillance communities are not going to help. Big problem... http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/20/opinion/schneier-stalker-economy/index.html Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From garth.graham at telus.net Thu Nov 21 10:41:24 2013 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 07:41:24 -0800 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com> References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2013-11-20, at 9:27 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > [ICANN has]... an interest in/responsibility for supporting the weakest link in that multi-stakeholder Internet ecology i.e. Civil Society. The weakest link in the Internet Ecology is NOT civil society. That’s just one more abstraction at that particular layer of social construction. The weakest link is actually a phrase that’s still so horrible as to be almost useless in analysis – the individual Internet user. Soon, more than half the human race will be basing capacity to relate on using the Internet. Policy makers need to figure out how to adjust the consequences of that enormous shift in peer-to-peer relationships without degrading the naturalness of the ecosystem that provides it. How are they doing so far with other natural ecosystems? However clumsy in addressing the needs of the individual Internet user to be “represented” in the domain name system ICANN might be, at least it still recognizes the problem. And the rise of the ALAC within ICANN provides some evidence that progress towards a useful dynamic balance in remembering and addressing the problem is being made. I would submit that the critical “link” in the Internet ecology is actually the stewards of the uses of ICTs for community development. Their creed to “share” the experience of what they are learning, rather than to control or regulate, is always left out of the governance debate. But they are still there, learning and sharing, whether anyone “resources” them or not. GG -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Nov 21 11:08:37 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:08:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [I-coordination] Brazil Meeting Planning In-Reply-To: <528AF740.2000904@ciroap.org> References: <9581032E-B850-4842-98A4-53F02723B1B9@afrinic.net> <9FA71A7D-DF04-447D-95C9-1A23E19D7B53@oracle.com> <2B3427B2-7441-45B0-960A-A3FD30CB4A7E@ciroap.org> <8E8BA747-0C2D-4938-AC87-8309F2ACF922@afrinic.net> <528AF740.2000904@ciroap.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 11:18:02 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:18:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} CS Steering Committee proposal Message-ID: <20131121171802.15d858b1@swan.bollow.ch> (resending - I'm traveling, and it appears that the first attempt didn't go out.) [With IGC coordinator hat on] Dear all, In the context of: - 1net - Brazil commitees - Future collaboration of Civil Society on representations Ian Peter has made a proposal that has circulated in the past 24 hours among the coordinating/steering/leadership of different platforms and networks. === Here is the proposal: """ My first suggestion is everyone agrees to formation of a Steering Committee. I suggest it be composed of one rep from each of APC Best Bits Diplo NCSG IGC I think you should empower the Civil Society Steering Committee (CSSC) to make such nominations as are necessary, consulting as appropriate. This seems to have a fair amount of agreement – and does have the advantage of allowing CS to speak in a more united fashion in various discussions. """ ==== Marianne has remarked that IRP needs to be on this as it is a coalition of its own. ==== What's the view of IGC on this proposal (and on the possible addition of IRP)? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Nov 21 11:42:17 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:42:17 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: An Interesting Review of A Book on Jeff Sachs and the Millennium Villages--Re: WSIS +10 Message-ID: <10f201cee6d8$a4545e00$ecfd1a00$@gmail.com> I think that there may be an interest in the below on this list since its subject, Jeffrey Sachs was the keynote speaker at the WSIS + 10 Review in February and is evidently the senior advisor to the UN on the update of the Millennium Development goals. There is currently a lively discussion on this subject on the main Community Informatics elist where a variety of grizzled and highly experienced on the ground ICT for Development practitioners are chiming in to add their own criticisms to Mr. Sachs` approach to Development, the use of ICTs and his gold plated (million dollar--evidently failing) Millennium Villages. (And as it happens this reinforces the need for some serious examination of the realities of results on the ground of ICT4D as an input into WSIS +10.) M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 12:44 PM To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: An Interesting Review of A Book on Jeff Sachs and the Millennium Villages http://www.mcleodgroup.ca/2013/11/19/idealism-and-hubris/ IDEALISM AND HUBRIS November 20, 2013 Nina Munk's new book, The Idealist: Jeffrey Sachs and the Quest to End Poverty, has received a lot of attention in recent weeks, not least because it is well written, deals with an important subject, and because it goes after a very high-profile champion of development assistance. It will be recalled that the economist, Jeff Sachs, Columbia University wunderkind, spent time in Poland and Russia at the end of the Cold War advising on the transition from communism to capitalism. His message was a hard one, or at least it was hard on the vulnerable who suffered mightily as the bottom fell out of those countries' social safety nets. Then Sachs turned his attention to poverty and Africa. His 2005 book, The End of Poverty, was full of outrage at the condition of the world's poor, and dismay that so little was being done to bring education, clean drinking water, health services and economic opportunity to Africa. He argued for a "big push" in foreign aid thinking and spending, arguing that poverty could be defeated in less than a generation if the world's rich countries cared enough, and if the governments of poor countries did the right thing. To prove what was possible, he conceived the idea of Millennium Development Villages-villages in poor parts of poor countries where the lessons of development could be applied in an integrated and sustainable way. It wouldn't cost much-perhaps $120 per person per year to provide health care, education and economic opportunity. And when the success of the model became clear, it could be replicated across Africa. There are now 15 Millennium Villages, and the experiment, initially a five-year effort, has been extended to ten. In the process of writing her book, Nina Munk spent a lot of time with Sachs-in Africa, on planes and in the Western capitals where he pitched his vision over and over to donor governments, the UN and some of the world's largest corporations. She also spent a lot of time in two of the villages, one in Uganda and one on the Kenyan border with Somalia. What she found, despite the Sachs juggernaut, despite the building of schools and clinics and hospitals, despite all the clever ideas about seed and fertilizer and new crops and water piped across hills and valleys to places as dry as a desert in summer, was that it isn't working. For villages unconnected to national networks of any kind-roads, education and health systems-the project had to create everything from scratch, building oases of technology and resources in the middle of nowhere. Costs rose. Clinics failed for want of supplies, generators failed for want of parts and fuel, new crops like cardamom could not be sold, and many villagers could not be socialized into new ways of thinking in a few short years. In fact the villagers who resisted are perhaps the smartest people in the story, knowing how risky it might be to abandon the tried and true in favour of fanciful promises from outsiders. For the outsiders it was an experiment; for the villagers it was about survival. There are several lessons in the Millennium Villages Project, or at least in Munk's book. The first is the one understood by villagers from the start: beware strangers bearing gifts who know nothing about you, your village, your culture or your history. A second lesson is one that should have been apparent to anyone with development experience, before Sachs spent his first dollar: even if you are successful in creating 15 islands of health and prosperity (at $5 or $10 million a time), that's all they are likely to be without vast additional resources and an exceptional amount of political capital-small, well-resourced islands in a wide and perilous sea. A third lesson is about hubris, and the penchant in outsiders-so evident in the creation every year of hundreds of tiny new NGOs sending starry-eyed voluntourists off to build schools and clinics in Africa-to think they have the answer, and to believe that the world (or Africa) began on the day their plane landed in Nairobi. They should all read this book before takeoff. Or sooner. And there is another lesson. As Nina Munk puts it, "Oversimplification is terribly dangerous." The book will probably be seen as another in the growing list of attacks on foreign aid. It is not that. If there is a criticism to be made, it's in the subtitle. The book is not about Jeffery Sachs and the Quest to End Poverty. It's about Jeffrey Sachs and His Quest to end Poverty. The quest to end poverty continues, and foreign aid-properly conceived, locally supported and applied with consistency and predictability-has an important part to pla -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 13:38:29 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:38:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com> References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0E149A89-BCB0-4F69-A0F5-F4571521B1BB@uzh.ch> On Nov 21, 2013, at 2:27 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Many are uneasy with this but if ICANN wishes to occupy that role (and given their privileged financial position as gatekeeper/rent extractor they are in a position to present themselves for this) then they have an interest in/responsibility for supporting the weakest link in that multi-stakeholder Internet ecology i.e. Civil Society. I can endorse the second lat of the sentence, and we have communicated this to Fadi and senior staff in some detail. They say they get it. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Nov 21 14:02:11 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:02:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: <0E149A89-BCB0-4F69-A0F5-F4571521B1BB@uzh.ch> References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com> <0E149A89-BCB0-4F69-A0F5-F4571521B1BB@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <122601cee6ec$2fee2690$8fca73b0$@gmail.com> Thanks for the endorsement Bill, but you left out what I consider to be a crucial element which is that that support should not be done simply by attempting to incorporate/co-opt civil society within ICANN (as seems to be the current direction) but rather to provide a means for the independent support of an independent, broadly based and inclusive Civil Society-not an easy task to accomplish but not I think, impossible. A useful example with some (but not total) relevance is the support that OSI provided for CSISAC at the OECD, which among other things, allowed for the hiring of a (part-time) CS coordinator and some (limited) funds for selected/expert CS participation in various OECD substantive activities/events. BTW one of the reasons that this worked to the degree that it did was that the funding went (indirectly) to CSISAC and the co-ordinator reported to the Steering Committee rather than for example, the funding being given to one or another of the organizational members of CSISAC who then had the responsibility for (opportunity to) pick and choose re: how the funds were spent (which inevitably leads to suspicion and bad feeling). Of course, the OECD is quite a different space from the IG one but various groupings within CS including notably a lot of the current parties in the IG CS space have managed to cooperate and accomplish quite a great deal as a result, in large part, of the (quite modest) financial support provided by OSI. M, From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:38 AM To: Governance; michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges On Nov 21, 2013, at 2:27 AM, michael gurstein wrote: Many are uneasy with this but if ICANN wishes to occupy that role (and given their privileged financial position as gatekeeper/rent extractor they are in a position to present themselves for this) then they have an interest in/responsibility for supporting the weakest link in that multi-stakeholder Internet ecology i.e. Civil Society. I can endorse the second lat of the sentence, and we have communicated this to Fadi and senior staff in some detail. They say they get it. 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 21 17:20:28 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 03:50:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} CS Steering Committee proposal In-Reply-To: <20131121171802.15d858b1@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131121171802.15d858b1@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Add isoc maybe? And work to see if 1net is agreeable to cooperating and engaging with this committee, so that its deliverables are coordinated where appropriate with the i* organizations? (or work to get additional civil society representation on 1net might work better) --srs (iPad) > On 21-Nov-2013, at 21:48, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > (resending - I'm traveling, and it appears that the first attempt > didn't go out.) > > > [With IGC coordinator hat on] > > Dear all, > > In the context of: > - 1net > - Brazil commitees > - Future collaboration of Civil Society on representations > > Ian Peter has made a proposal that has circulated in the past 24 hours > among the coordinating/steering/leadership of different platforms and > networks. > > === > Here is the proposal: > > """ > My first suggestion is everyone agrees to formation of a Steering > Committee. I suggest it be composed of one rep from each of > > APC > Best Bits > Diplo > NCSG > IGC > > > I think you should empower the Civil Society Steering Committee (CSSC) > to make such nominations as are necessary, consulting as appropriate. > > This seems to have a fair amount of agreement – and does have the > advantage of allowing CS to speak in a more united fashion in various > discussions. > """ > > ==== > > Marianne has remarked that IRP needs to be on this as it is a coalition > of its own. > > ==== > > What's the view of IGC on this proposal (and on the possible addition > of IRP)? > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 21 17:24:11 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 03:54:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: An Interesting Review of A Book on Jeff Sachs and the Millennium Villages--Re: WSIS +10 In-Reply-To: <10f201cee6d8$a4545e00$ecfd1a00$@gmail.com> References: <10f201cee6d8$a4545e00$ecfd1a00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <49FFDA59-61B9-4D22-A79F-C858E3C9B4C5@hserus.net> Thanks for sharing. This seems something that is pervasive across parts of civil society and not just new NGOs A third lesson is about hubris, and the penchant in outsiders—so evident in the creation every year of hundreds of tiny new NGOs sending starry-eyed voluntourists off to build schools and clinics in Africa—to think they have the answer, and to believe that the world (or Africa) began on the day their plane landed in Nairobi --srs (iPad) > On 21-Nov-2013, at 22:12, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > A third lesson is about hubris, and the penchant in outsiders—so evident in the creation every year of hundreds of tiny new NGOs sending starry-eyed voluntourists off to build schools and clinics in Africa—to think they have the answer, and to believe that the world (or Africa) began on the day their plane landed in Nairobi. They should all read this book before takeoff. Or sooner. And there is another lesson. As Nina Munk puts it, “Oversimplification is terribly dangerous.” > > > > The book will probably be seen as another in the growing list of attacks on foreign aid. It is not that. If there is a criticism to be made, it’s in the subtitle. The book is not about Jeffery Sachs and the Quest to End Poverty. It’s about Jeffrey Sachs and His Quest to end Poverty. The -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 21 17:37:31 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 04:07:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <80FAE216-77CE-4D89-A492-540408317747@hserus.net> I fully agree with Garth, and I also agree that people implementing ICT and ICT best practices on the ground, working across stakeholder groups to socialize best practice and drive ICT adoption, are probably the strongest link in civil society, though possibly the most marginalized in discussions such as these. --srs (iPad) > On 21-Nov-2013, at 21:11, Garth Graham wrote: > >> On 2013-11-20, at 9:27 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> [ICANN has]... an interest in/responsibility for supporting the weakest link in that multi-stakeholder Internet ecology i.e. Civil Society. > > The weakest link in the Internet Ecology is NOT civil society. That’s just one more abstraction at that particular layer of social construction. The weakest link is actually a phrase that’s still so horrible as to be almost useless in analysis – the individual Internet user. > > Soon, more than half the human race will be basing capacity to relate on using the Internet. Policy makers need to figure out how to adjust the consequences of that enormous shift in peer-to-peer relationships without degrading the naturalness of the ecosystem that provides it. How are they doing so far with other natural ecosystems? > > However clumsy in addressing the needs of the individual Internet user to be “represented” in the domain name system ICANN might be, at least it still recognizes the problem. And the rise of the ALAC within ICANN provides some evidence that progress towards a useful dynamic balance in remembering and addressing the problem is being made. > > I would submit that the critical “link” in the Internet ecology is actually the stewards of the uses of ICTs for community development. Their creed to “share” the experience of what they are learning, rather than to control or regulate, is always left out of the governance debate. But they are still there, learning and sharing, whether anyone “resources” them or not. > > GG > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Nov 21 23:38:57 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:08:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Brazil meeting - CS representation Message-ID: <528EDFE1.9030909@itforchange.net> All I am not sure whether we are still going to send a letter to the Brazilians about independent liaison between civil society and the Brazilian hosts, or ifwe are now settled on having that done through the 1net structure. (And of course to also put forward the four names for our proposed liaison structure.) Have we now dropped that idea? I understand that a meeting/ announcement on the 25th will further cement the emerging organising structure, and there isnt much time left if we indeed want to make such a communication to the Brazilians. As I said a few days back, if such a letter has to go, it has to go 'today', and personally delivered to highest authority with request for acknowledgement and response. For an annoucement to be made on monday, people would have mostly decided on what to announce by Friday.. 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Nov 22 00:55:37 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 05:55:37 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> ,<528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2B6687@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Permit we to wade in and attempt to move the rock back up the hill: - Parminder's right to highlight the dichotomy around 'do as I say I would do if I didn't also deal with OECD' - Andrew's right that CS can't be blamed for OECD ICCP, even in its new and improved with CSISAC form. In principle, an ICCP for the rest of the world does not sound bad; of course details matter a lot. (And I will be first to admit I get a kick of occasionally attending an OECD meeting; more fun than most. OK so what, clock is still ticking loudly and time is awasting on cs getting its act together sufficiently to have much impact on the upcoming brazil meeting agenda; among other things of substance to discuss. Which brings us back to my various scenarios for a constructive detente with ICANN AND (gasp) the multilateralist UN, to support the policy space needed to deal with 'orphan issues' among other IG matters. Please do not reply to part 1, just second part on possible shape of future - compromises - to get deal done/press release out on time and under budget, in Brazil. Lee ________________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Dixie Hawtin [Dixie at gp-digital.org] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:24 PM To: parminder; Andrew Puddephatt Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: RE: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add my 2 cents too! On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision. And I seem to recall many, many civil society speaking against them at the IGF in Nairobi. In fact, the IRP organised a workshop on copyright that year, one of the main agenda issues discussed was concerns with the OECP Internet Policy-Making Principles. On the CoE Cybersecurity convention too, I recall huge agreement among civil society that there were serious flaws in the convention, and it was wrong to push it on other countries (and wrong for CoE countries to fully adopt too). In fact, I' specifically remember hearing Anja argue this strongly on many panels. I think there is so much agreement among civil society on so many issues, but we never reach it because people come back continuously to the few areas where there are disagreement (or where people's opinions aren't fully formed and they aren't willing to concede until they are) and scratch at them on and on that prevents us from working on the areas where there is agreement. If we spent more time working on the areas where there is agreement, I honestly think that by the time we came to the more contentious areas we'd find them much narrower and easier to deal with, then we do by starting at those points. These conversations always seem to be framed as "we need to agree on the most contentious issues BEFORE we discuss anything else". For example, coming up with a proposal to put forward for the Brazil meeting - I think if we started trying to craft the language, the concerns with the current situation, the things we want to see, I think there would be huge amounts of agreement - strengthening IGF, internationalising ICANN, the values that should be ingrained in any governance mechanism. Then if at the end of that we came to some sort of roadblock (in very crude terms multi-stakeholder vs multi-lateral but I think those generic terms might sound far more apart than they are actually are among many civil society people), we could at that point decide to either submit different proposals, or come up with some slightly diplomatic fudge that most of us could sign on too, and as a result would have a lot of power. That's what happened with the WCIT statement. Anyways, I'm really frustrated to see the BB list go the same way as the IGC list just one month after we all agreed we didn't want that to happen. And I don't think anyone has caused it by the principles behind what they are saying, but rather by the way in which they say those things. Just to say, I thought the exact same about the debate about civil society funding. It's a completely valid point and I know that we at GPD are working on producing public reports of our funding streams. But it should not be started with: whoever gets funding from x funder is therefore invalid and should not be included in the debate. Again the conversation should start where there is agreement: i.e. "I think transparency and accountability among civil society is important, and one thing we should look at ways of being more transparent about is funding". Best, Dixie ________________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 21 November 2013 14:04 To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on this particular theme. I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life to support the free expression of views. But I want BB to be a constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not spiral down as other networks have done. It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and you still are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you want to sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff of ' old views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man argument... No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to substantive points.... My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you. You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber crime convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do these things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels. Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies.... When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the number of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write one against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my question... One doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending them - it is enough that CS groups participate in these activties and endorse their outcomes (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively being promoted for global uptake - are we ready to write a statement against such an undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series are of the same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including your organisation participated in the process. But did we say that it is not right to not treat all countries at the same level..... It is these questions that would keep coming from the global South.... When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human Rights Council No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I cant see HRC being such a body.... – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment of human rights. The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global internet related policies.... Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they are. I think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that recognised the legitimate interests of states, companies and users and I want that arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in its DNA. I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with others in the next few months. My preference is for a dispersed arrangement in which different interests are balanced, but will likely comprise internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments, with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role. On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and CoE, there is no global body that can anchor norm building and facilitate treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies. But I’m looking forward to others’ views. And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do not. That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people. We all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak freely. Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38 To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC Andrew I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do. Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue. my responses below... On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it.... that straw men are being put up to be knocked down so I wanted to pick up on this and set out my own thoughts. You think speaking about OECD and CoE's (council of europe) 'global' public policy activities is a straw man? Well. one of the most pointed interventions made by Carlos during the recent WGEC meeting was that developing countries resent global IG done through processes like the CoE's cybercrime treaty which was first negotiated among a few countries, and then sought to be exported to others.... Brazil took the floor to support Carlos' intervention. Later, India referred to OECD developing Principles for Internet Policy Making. You think they were all putting up strawmen? I am disappointed that such an important position of developing countries against developed country based "global' public policy making, especially in the IG space, is being dismissed in such a summary and disdainful manner. Firstly I’m not aware of anyone defending the OECD process of policy making as the model we should follow – maybe I missed that on the thread at some point – but it passed me by. People have been supportive of the changes it has made to become more multi-stakeholder ( rather than promoting it as the example of best practice) - certainly no-one I know who argues for a multi-stakeholder approach has positively supported the OECD’s approach – which in any case requires voluntary adoption of standards rather than produce anything binding. With the Council of Europe, this is a regional treaty body – not global – which was created in the wake of fascism in 1945 to promote human rights and democracy in Europe. It has a specific geographic focus and essentially sets out standards which it is for nation states to adopt – it does bind member states who have to consent to the norms. It sits alongside the African Union and the Inter-American Commission in this respect (both of which have developing countries in their membership). In the field of human rights protection, with the court in Strasbourg, it has proved very effective and its data protection provisions have also been helpful. Human rights is part of its DNA - but it is not a governance model for the internet and no one I know claims it to be. The concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to run the internet What kind of state based body to 'run the Internet' you allude to, and who proposed it.... BTW, do you think that OECD by making Internet policy principles 'runs the Internet', or US through its ICANN/IANA oversight role, and jurisprudence over the companies which are 70 percent of the Internet, 'runs the Internet'..... Or, is it that such loaded terms are to be used only for processes that may include poor, developing countries? (Accompanied by shutting up any counter-discourse by calling it various names as your email is full of...) is not that it would give developing countries a voice – that’s a goal we all share – but because the example of bodies like the Human Rights Council, which has become a place where governments seek to prevent human rights standards from being enforced, rather than a place where positive policies are pursued. Of course the HRC has done good work – but it is a relentless diplomatic battle to hold the line. In the most recent elections Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba were all elected unopposed and I can tell you that very few people in the broad human rights movement are comforted by that. Yes that is a problem. However, no less is the problem of US's dominance and role in OECD, TPP, kind of global IG processes, for instance its insisting that net neutrality should be removed from OECD principles, and it pushing in overly strong IP protections and some clear pointers to private policing by ISPs in the same Principles document.... We cannot just keep using the 2-3 names of these above countries that you mention to discredit anything and everything that the UN or developing countries in general do or propose. Speaking of repeating old hackneyed arguments, as you do below, this one would any day take the cake in global IG space, My feeling about Best Bits is that the majority of participants want to figure out – working collaboratively and constructively – how we can contribute to the development of an open internet that supports democracy and human rights. I have no doubt that this is what we and networks that we work with are most interested in.... Democracy btw does not admit vote or veto power for business reps in public policy making . And human rights go much beyond FoE and privacy and cover so many social, economic and cultural issues... Most of us think that involving all stakeholders is crucial to that though we all recognise the difficulties inherent in such a process. I suggest that those of us who want to undertake this work get on with it and those who want something else get on with that. It’s a big world and there’s room for all opinions. IT for Change works closely on the ground to promote participatory democracy In India, I would not get into pressing that point too much here... BTW, since you may have missed it, just one thing - it is we who suggested adding 'Multi-stakeholder' (MS) term to the erstwhile Advisory Group of the IGF, it is we who worked with India on the famous "India proposal' during the meetings of WG on IGF improvements and actually were able to get almost all developing countries to agree to strengthening IGF (at least over the first year of WG IGF), whereas you may want to check more on what the so called MSists were doing then.... 'India proposal' and ITfC's proposal strongly pushed for recs giving power for the IGF, strengthening MAG to a much more substantial role, including working through WGs and so on..... You dont think that would amount to working on strengthening the multistakeholder approach.... Just because you have created a strawman of multilateralism versus MSism, are you suggesting that MLists, *as defined by you* should move elsewhere and this is a space for MSists to work..... I also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has been a way in which many new people have been able to enter the conversation about IG and internet policy issues but that there is a danger if the sterile nature of current discussions continues, they will driven away. (Several participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go the way of the IGC.) I think we have thoroughly aired the different views on multi-lateral v multi-stakeholder so can we move on and do the work we each want to do No, we havent... But if you think we are all clear about what is MSism and what is MLism (whereby, as you say, we should move on), may I ask you whether MSism includes business reps voting in making actual decisions about substantive public policy issues. A simple direct question, and if you are not clear about any element of it I can clarify... If your answer is yes, I am not a MSist, if it is no, I am as MSist as you or anyone else is. If you give me an answer to this question, I promise I'll move on -- depending on your answer with the MS brigade or the MList one... though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they want. Thanks, but your email really doesnt sound you are too happy that I put my side of what I think were and are important issues following the WGEC meeting, and also as we move forward. I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I will be supporting something different to you. As per the above, I really do not know what do you mean by an inter-gov model.... If its identifying feature is that business reps will not be able to vote or veto with regard to substantive public policy issues, then yes I am proposing an inter-gov model (for me, all stakeholders should be an important part of all pre decision making processes, which for me is an MS approach)..... And since you say, you'd support 'something different', may I know whether in your model business will have vote/ veto power in terms of substantive public policy matters... In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years or more. How many different ways you have used to tell me not to present my views :). It is really ingenious of you. parminder So I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the adage of Jon Postel – be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: 19 November 2013 14:13 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Dear Anja Thank you for this. I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change proposal. Could it be differences between ministries? No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document with the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also my understanding that this position was developed and approved by an inter ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of all the relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest level clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to rest... While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good people of the world seem to live and breathe..... Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is just proposing to have done by including all countries of the world that OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers, Information and Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with only the richest countries of the world being involved. Is there anything wrong with it? If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current 'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes global policy and if the differences are on this point, lets discuss it.) Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am completely unable to understand how people and organisations that rather enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet policy making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model whenever it is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been taken from the devil himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start getting thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations ever protested against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE, and the such) making Internet policies (for the whole world)? Especially when these rich country clubs dont even include all countries, excluding all those countries whose only fault is that they arent rich? That would be something for civil society to be protesting about.... Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told, no, in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil society reps do not participate in actual decision making. They will be told that business and civil society vote or veto on substantive decision making on public policy issues will never never be accepted. Just forget it (and go read your political science books) ! Civil society persons know this will be the response, and they dont want to stand there looking a bit sheepish! So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people put this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy' to developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for new institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic deficit in the governance to the Internet, which is today a major instrument of re-distributing all kinds of power? I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be given the answer to the above question - why these double standards between developed countries and the developing ones? Why does the meaning of multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model presented by India takes the demonic colors of multilateralism... Any takers? Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of global IG... parminder I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications. Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are just a but left out of the loop. But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by multi-stakeholder IG. That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed solutions. Anriette On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India made to the WGEC (see below this message and here: http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/ ) Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder models for Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government again tabled a proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be established under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP. Comments most welcome. Best, Anja Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take over the governance of the Internet? by Anja Kovacs Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation give the strong impression that this is indeed the case. In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC), which met for the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government recommended the following: The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have been revived. Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose dominance needs to be established at the expense of other stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other stakeholders will only be given an advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially where the role of civil society is concerned - are outmoded is something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect its proposal. Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil society representative. The latter took with this a position quite radically different from other Indian members of civil society active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in this field, who believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way forward. Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there might at times be space for multilateralism within this multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new treaty, then from that point onwards, governments would take over as negotiating treaties is their job. However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of government dominance in the policy process, irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it also leaves the Internet policy making process much more vulnerable to the vagaries of global geopolitics. The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also for developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without their flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To think that principles that should govern the work of these bodies can be formulated or effectively applied without a central involvement of all stakeholders already involved in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be said, conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed. The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis Agenda. India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that would privilege governments in the making of international Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been established by the government precisely for such purposes in August of this year. For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and his own commitment to this model. -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Nov 22 05:16:19 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:16:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fw: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS representation Message-ID: <20131122111619.44938e80@swan.bollow.ch> Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Datum: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:52:44 +0530 Von: Anja Kovacs An: "<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," Betreff: [bestbits] Important: letter to Brazil government on CS representation Dear Parminder and all, Please find below the text of the letter that the liaisons feel comfortable with. If you have any concerns about this letter being forwarded as is, please let us know within 24 hours of this email being sent. If there are no further comments, it will go as is. For your information, the IGC cocoordinators and the IRP DC steering committee have been involved in the developing of this letter as well and support it as is. Thanks and best, Anja LETTER FINAL DRAFT To Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications - Minicom Mr. Virgilio de Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy at the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation - MCTI Mr. Valdir Simão, Special Assessor for the Presidency Emb. Benedicto Fonseca, Director of the Department of Scientific and Technological Affairs of the Minister of External Relations - MRE and Mr. Harmut Glaser, Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br We, as representatives of three networks that include civil society organisations and individuals involved in Internet governance, are writing with reference to preparations for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance that is planned to be held in São Paulo, Brazil by April 2014. During the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali this year, many of us met in person, and some others participated remotely and agreed that the following persons would be delegated to serve as interim Liaisons from across these networks for purposes of planning the Global Meeting: * Ms Joana Varon Ferraz * Ms Carolina Rossini * Mr Carlos A Afonso * Ms Laura Tresca This letter is to express our continuing support for this arrangement as planning for the meeting takes shape. The above interim Liaisons shall remain at disposal of the Brazilian authorities in all matters pertaining to the organisation of the Global Meeting, and we urge that our Liaisons should in the context of these preparations be invited to all meetings with all other constituencies as full participants in this process. We support their work and look forward to hearing of progress in their reports back to our networks that are made up of a broad constituency of civil society groups and individuals. They have our trust and support. If you have any inquiries about the above matter, please do not hesitate to contact us at any time, either directly or through the above Liaisons. Yours sincerely, etc -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Nov 22 06:19:34 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:19:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] AC MS e-glasnots Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Nov 22 06:02:23 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:02:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [I-coordination] Just an idea to frame the discussion and know what are the expectations ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 22 08:47:07 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:47:07 -0300 Subject: [governance] AC MS e-glasnots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ED1CEBA-B13F-4169-B1ED-3930F7AAFE67@istaff.org> On Nov 22, 2013, at 8:19 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: > This document, I interspred with comments, informations, questions gives us a better understanding of the I* society attemps. Of its ideas, targets and limitations. One could only wish that all the published document are referenced on the wiki.1NET I proposed. I have no idea if 1net will have a wiki; the topic of collaboration tools needed by 1net seems like an excellent topic for its steering committee to consider, once seated. I am going to respond to a few of your comments as I have first hand knowledge and endeavor to share information whenever possible. >> From: isoc-advisory-council-bounces at elists.isoc.org [ mailto:isoc-advisory-council-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour >> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 11:27 PM >> To: isoc-advisory-council at elists.isoc.org >> Subject: [isoc-advisory-council] Internet Governance Update - Nov. 15, 2013 >> ... >> I* CEO Meetings: >> >> With respect to the Montevideo meeting and the statement that was issued afterwards, some background might be helpful >> >> · these I* CEO meetings have taken place regularly for the past three years (usually twice a year, several days). > > Thank you to let us know how the Aug. 2012 statement was prepared: what about Steve Mills, President of IEEE? Now we understand that RIRs and ICANN attended. The list of leaders who have been participating in the I* meetings are the same as those who signed the Montevideo Statement - ICANN, ISOC, IAB, IETF, the 5 RIRs, and W3C. (W3C is the latest addition, approximately 18 months ago or so). To my, knowledge, the IEEE leadership has never been present at the I* CEO meetings. If your reference to an August 2012 statement is to "OpenStand", I will note that it was not an I* CEO meeting topic during development, nor did ARIN did participate in any meetings about it - we learned of it nearly concurrently with the announcement. (In the future, it would be helpful if you stated speculation in the form of a question for confirmation rather than an assertion of "fact" - thanks!) >> · The meetings are convened and chaired by ISOC, specifically, by me, as ISOC President & CEO, at the request of the other I* organizations. This reflects our broad Mission and the breadth of our organization and responsibilities. > > This tells who is the real leader. Lynn is a indeed a remarkable leader, and she serves as a great Chair for the meetings. I would, however, characterize the meetings as a gathering of peers; i.e. no single voice is dominant. FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Fri Nov 22 11:58:00 2013 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:58:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Former FCC commissioner Michael Copps on The National Security-Communications Industry Complex In-Reply-To: <1385124426.3080911675809369@mf74.sendgrid.net> References: <1385124426.3080911675809369@mf74.sendgrid.net> Message-ID: <528F8D18.20009@communisphere.com> Folks, Below is an insightful article by former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps on his experiences with national security interests while at the FCC. Copps' experiences led me to ponder how civil society might enter into a trusting multistakeholder negotiation knowing of these close relationships between government and industry. Here's one approach. Civil society must acknowledge that the nation-state has a vital role in matters of security. And we must accept that an institutional aversion to failure in these matters is natural. With this awareness we can ask that nation-state participants in multistakeholder talks present a "statement of needs." This statement should present in general scope, and as much detail as practicable, the nature of relationships sought by government to meet these needs. Working from these understandings civil society can enter into a trusting relationship in Brazil and elsewhere. Tom Lowenhaupt Click here to view this message on the web. Syndicate content Twitter Facebook icon Benton icon [/The Benton Foundation publishes articles penned by Commissioner Copps each month for our Digital Beat Blog ./] *The Long Arm of the National Security-Communications Industry Complex* This is a story about more than just the national security implications of government surveillance, but it begins there. The New York Times reported in a front page story earlier this month that the Central Intelligence Agency is paying AT&T in excess of $10 million annually for information from the company’s telephone records, including the international calls of U.S. citizens. The article pointed out that this work "is conducted under a voluntary contract, not under subpoenas or court orders compelling the company to participate, according to officials." The story adds yet another chapter to the still-unfolding revelations about National Security Agency surveillance. Every week seems to bring new reports about the close and almost seamless ties that bind the several intelligence agencies to the huge telecom and broadband companies that bestride our nation’s communications infrastructure. When I became a Member of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2001, I assumed I would be privy to at least a credible amount of information about what the companies under FCC oversight were doing behind the scenes. My expectations went unfulfilled. Did I expect the nation’s most sensitive intelligence information to be shared with me? No, I did not. But would it have been helpful for me to know more about how the industry executives who visited me on a whole range of non-national security communications industry issues were at the same time working hand-in-glove with the White House and these secretive agencies on a far more intimate and confidential basis than I was? Yes, absolutely. Warnings about various special interest-government complexes hearken back to President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech wherein he warned of the dangers that the military-industrial complex held for democratic government. Historians consider Ike’s admonition as a high-point of his Presidency. Since that speech almost 53 years ago, the influence of special interests and corporate power has only grown -- at the White House, in Congress, and among the federal agencies. Maybe I’m a slow learner, or maybe I just wasn’t supposed to know, but it finally dawned on me that the CEOs and top management who came calling on me at the FCC were far better informed and connected than I was -- because their companies were the ones running these sensitive monitoring and surveillance operations in behalf of the national security agencies. It was, very often, their workers and their technologies that drove the process. Meanwhile, industry leaders themselves served on such influential but hush-hush boards as The President’s National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee . As I began to grasp the power of these huge companies to leverage their influence on non-national security matters, I also began to understand that my influence as a Commissioner at an independent federal agency was more limited than I had thought. In a lengthy July 25, 2013 article in the National Journal, Chief Correspondent Michael Hirsh traced in considerable detail how our nation’s leading telecom and tech companies supported -- and even helped create -- the “surveillance state.” It is, of course, a story going back long before Iraq and Afghanistan to the days of World War II, and it’s the stuff of a thriller novel -- except it’s not that entertaining. Hirsh tells how the NSA became an influential voice in the evolution of our communications systems, becoming a “major presence” in such seemingly non-defense decisions as industry mergers and consolidations. But these transactions weren’t “non-defense” to the intelligence agencies. On the contrary, it was easier and more efficient for the agencies to deal with huge industry players where the number of decision-makers was narrowed and where the sheer power of size helped get the national security job done. It wasn’t news to me that these huge companies wielded far-reaching power all across Washington. I just didn’t realize how much power until I had been there a while. Then I began to think: /what difference does it make if one or two Commissioners at the FCC don’t approve of a pending merger between telecom giants?/ (And, goodness knows, there are plenty of such transactions!) I conjured up images of a national security agency meeting at the White House and someone saying, /“This guy Copps down at the FCC is opposed to this merger.”/ And I could envision a White House or national security type saying, /“So what? These companies are working with us on all kinds of secret projects, and that takes precedence over any Commissioner’s worries about diminishing competition in communications or about consumer protection.”/ And so the consolidation bazaar rolls on, companies continue to merge, and we find ourselves in a world wherein a few dominant players drive the last spikes into the coffin of competition. I am not arguing that national security concerns alone brought us to this point; there are plenty of other reasons that Big Telecom wants to grow even bigger. I */am/* saying that both parties to this national security-communications industry complex derived great benefits (in their eyes) from this partnership. I */am/* saying the tentacles of this cooperative enterprise reach widely and deeply into many aspects of our national life. And I */am/* saying the American people need to know more -- much more -- about this. We can argue the pros and cons of national security surveillance, and it is a debate worth having. But this debate needs to be informed by facts. Maybe we can’t have all the facts in all their detail, but certainly we need more than we presently possess. There is a point where national security depends upon secrecy. There is also a point where national security depends upon sunlight. The balance is sadly out-of-whack right now, and we are paying the price in the loss of government credibility both at home and abroad. Finally, we need to conduct this discussion in a broader context because it is part of even larger issues. Every day brings non-national security revelations about companies developing and deploying new ways to invade our personal space, capture every available fact about our daily lives and habits, and share them for purely commercial benefit. This is not an issue separate from what I have been discussing in this piece. And, as deeply troubling as the privacy and consumer issues are, the implications for democracy are just as severe. Open communications are a prerequisite of self-government. Any short-circuiting of this openness diminishes the ability of free people to chart their own democratic future. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Copps served as a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission from May 2001 to December 2011 and was the FCC's Acting Chairman from January to June 2009. His years at the Commission have been highlighted by his strong defense of "the public interest"; outreach to what he calls "non-traditional stakeholders" in the decisions of the FCC, particularly minorities, Native Americans and the various disabilities communities; and actions to stem the tide of what he regards as excessive consolidation in the nation's media and telecommunications industries. In 2012, former Commissioner Copps joined Common Cause to lead its Media and Democracy Reform Initiative. Common Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John Gardner as a vehicle for citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest. Unsubscribe from this newsletter Forward this newsletter -------------------------------------------------------------- Communications-related Headlines is a free online news summary service provided by the Benton Foundation (www.benton.org ). Posted Monday through Friday, this service provides updates on important industry developments, policy issues, and other related news events. While the summaries are factually accurate, their often informal tone does not always represent the tone of the original articles. Headlines are compiled by Kevin Taglang -- we welcome your comments. -------------------------------------------------------------- (c)Benton Foundation 2013. Redistribution of this email publication -- both internally and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this message. For subscribe/unsubscribe info email: headlines AT benton DOT org -------------------------------------------------------------- The Benton Foundation (www.benton.org ) works to realize the social benefits made possible by the public interest use of communications. Bridging the worlds of philanthropy, public policy, and community action, Benton seeks to shape the emerging communications environment and to demonstrate the value of communications for solving social problems. -------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Taglang Editor, Communications-related Headlines Benton Foundation Communications in the Public Interest 1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 headlines AT benton DOT 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 devonrb at gmail.com Fri Nov 22 12:55:15 2013 From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:55:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Former FCC commissioner Michael Copps on The National Security-Communications Industry Complex In-Reply-To: <528F8D18.20009@communisphere.com> References: <1385124426.3080911675809369@mf74.sendgrid.net> <528F8D18.20009@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Hi Tom, " *Civil society must acknowledge that the nation-state has a vital role in matters of security. And we must accept that an institutional aversion to failure in these matters is natural. With this awareness we can ask that nation-state participants in multistakeholder talks present a "statement of needs." This statement should present in general scope, and as much detail as practicable, the nature of relationships sought by government to meet these needs."* I like this approach. There has to be some understanding of the difficulties faced the world over by Governments, they have primary responsibility for a nation's health, education and welfare and in no lesser way the security of their people, infrastructure, and capital. There have to be strategies to combat the myriad of security issues that face both Governments and us the citizens. Always there will be the need for balance between security and personal privacy. As natural as electricity finding the path with least resistance, according the this article, Governments have been utilizing the conglomerates with large databases of personal information and the ability to track individual activities, especially within the cyber environment to provide them with raw data for their intelligence analyses, and to inform their various Government's policy decisions. The inherent danger in this of course is the need for reciprocity. Conglomerates are profit centered so it is clear their payback from government will be any perks, allowances, incentives or competitive intelligence that will improve their bottom line. Hence the long-term negative impacts warned about by Ike and now realized in our day. Governments in bed with conglomerates in secret, is a clear recipe for inequality, injustice, inequity and certainly not a level playing field for the ordinary citizen. The loss of privacy therefore just adds painful stings to the wounds our people face. Civil Society is supposed to be the structure through which the ordinary citizen's voice can be heard in the hallowed halls of exalted policy decision making. I have read and listened to dialogues, speeches, position papers, conventions, and treaties. I am often left wondering how much of these would the ordinary citizen understand and could empathise with. Is it that there is a different language for civil society leaders use to speak on behalf of their constituencies? So there seems to be a disconnect between the structures and administrations that represent our interests and an understanding of what our real needs are. There has to be a concerted effort to have direct contact between state and non-state actors, especially now that we can reach over 40% of the populations via the internet, and the real-time nature of the information derived therefrom. If not the gulf will continue to widen between the haves and the have nots, and the top of the wealth pyramid will continue to have smaller angles even as the base gets wider. Devon On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > Folks, > > Below is an insightful article by former FCC Commissioner Michael Coppson his experiences with national security interests while at the FCC. > Copps' experiences led me to ponder how civil society might enter into a > trusting multistakeholder negotiation knowing of these close relationships > between government and industry. Here's one approach. > > Civil society must acknowledge that the nation-state has a vital role in > matters of security. And we must accept that an institutional aversion to > failure in these matters is natural. > > With this awareness we can ask that nation-state participants in > multistakeholder talks present a "statement of needs." This statement > should present in general scope, and as much detail as practicable, the > nature of relationships sought by government to meet these needs. > > Working from these understandings civil society can enter into a trusting > relationship in Brazil and elsewhere. > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > > Click here to view this message on the web. > [image: Syndicate content] [image: > Twitter] [image: > Facebook icon] [image: > Benton icon] > > [*The Benton Foundation publishes articles penned by Commissioner Copps > each month for our Digital Beat Blog > .* > ] > > *The Long Arm of the National Security-Communications Industry Complex* > > This is a story about more than just the national security implications of > government surveillance, but it begins there. > > The New York Times reported in a front page storyearlier this month that the Central > Intelligence Agencyis paying AT&T in excess of $10 million annually for information from the > company’s telephone records, including the international calls of U.S. > citizens. The article pointed out that this work "is conducted under a > voluntary contract, not under subpoenas or court orders compelling the > company to participate, according to officials." The story adds yet another > chapter to the still-unfolding revelations about National Security Agencysurveillance. Every week seems to bring new reports about the close and > almost seamless ties that bind the several intelligence agencies to the > huge telecom and broadband companies that bestride our nation’s > communications infrastructure. > > When I became a Member of the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) in 2001, I assumed I would be privy to at least a credible amount of > information about what the companies under FCC oversight were doing behind > the scenes. My expectations went unfulfilled. > > Did I expect the nation’s most sensitive intelligence information to be > shared with me? No, I did not. But would it have been helpful for me to > know more about how the industry executives who visited me on a whole range > of non-national security communications industry issues were at the same > time working hand-in-glove with the White House and these secretive > agencies on a far more intimate and confidential basis than I was? Yes, > absolutely. > > Warnings about various special interest-government complexes hearken back > to President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speechwherein he warned of the dangers that the military-industrial complex held > for democratic government. Historians consider Ike’s admonition as a > high-point of his Presidency. Since that speech almost 53 years ago, the > influence of special interests and corporate power has only grown -- at the > White House, in Congress, and among the federal agencies. > > Maybe I’m a slow learner, or maybe I just wasn’t supposed to know, but it > finally dawned on me that the CEOs and top management who came calling on > me at the FCC were far better informed and connected than I was -- because > their companies were the ones running these sensitive monitoring and > surveillance operations in behalf of the national security agencies. It > was, very often, their workers and their technologies that drove the > process. Meanwhile, industry leaders themselves served on such influential > but hush-hush boards as The President’s National Security > Telecommunications Advisory Committee. > > > As I began to grasp the power of these huge companies to leverage their > influence on non-national security matters, I also began to understand that > my influence as a Commissioner at an independent federal agency was more > limited than I had thought. In a lengthy July 25, 2013 article in the > National Journal, Chief Correspondent Michael Hirshtraced in considerable detail how our nation’s leading telecom and tech > companies supported -- and even helped create -- the “surveillance state.” > It is, of course, a story going back long before Iraq and Afghanistan to > the days of World War II, and it’s the stuff of a thriller novel -- except > it’s not that entertaining. > > Hirsh tells how the NSA became an influential voice in the evolution of > our communications systems, becoming a “major presence” in such seemingly > non-defense decisions as industry mergers and consolidations. But these > transactions weren’t “non-defense” to the intelligence agencies. On the > contrary, it was easier and more efficient for the agencies to deal with > huge industry players where the number of decision-makers was narrowed and > where the sheer power of size helped get the national security job done. > > It wasn’t news to me that these huge companies wielded far-reaching power > all across Washington. I just didn’t realize how much power until I had > been there a while. Then I began to think: *what difference does it make > if one or two Commissioners at the FCC don’t approve of a pending merger > between telecom giants?* (And, goodness knows, there are plenty of such > transactions!) I conjured up images of a national security agency meeting > at the White Houseand someone saying, *“This > guy Copps down at the FCC is opposed to this merger.”* And I could > envision a White House or national security type saying, *“So what? These > companies are working with us on all kinds of secret projects, and that > takes precedence over any Commissioner’s worries about diminishing > competition in communications or about consumer protection.”* > > And so the consolidation bazaar rolls on, companies continue to merge, and > we find ourselves in a world wherein a few dominant players drive the last > spikes into the coffin of competition. I am not arguing that national > security concerns alone brought us to this point; there are plenty of other > reasons that Big Telecom wants to grow even bigger. I *am* saying that > both parties to this national security-communications industry complex > derived great benefits (in their eyes) from this partnership. I *am*saying the tentacles of this cooperative enterprise reach widely and deeply > into many aspects of our national life. And I *am* saying the American > people need to know more -- much more -- about this. > > We can argue the pros and cons of national security surveillance, and it > is a debate worth having. But this debate needs to be informed by facts. > Maybe we can’t have all the facts in all their detail, but certainly we > need more than we presently possess. There is a point where national > security depends upon secrecy. There is also a point where national > security depends upon sunlight. The balance is sadly out-of-whack right > now, and we are paying the price in the loss of government credibility both > at home and abroad. > > Finally, we need to conduct this discussion in a broader context because > it is part of even larger issues. Every day brings non-national security > revelations about companies developing and deploying new ways to invade our > personal space, capture every available fact about our daily lives and > habits, and share them for purely commercial benefit. This is not an issue > separate from what I have been discussing in this piece. And, as deeply > troubling as the privacy and consumer issues are, the implications for > democracy are just as severe. Open communications are a prerequisite of > self-government. Any short-circuiting of this openness diminishes the > ability of free people to chart their own democratic future. > ------------------------------ > Michael Copps served as a commissioner on the Federal Communications > Commission from May 2001 to December 2011 and was the FCC's Acting Chairman > from January to June 2009. His years at the Commission have been > highlighted by his strong defense of "the public interest"; outreach to > what he calls "non-traditional stakeholders" in the decisions of the FCC, > particularly minorities, Native Americans and the various disabilities > communities; and actions to stem the tide of what he regards as excessive > consolidation in the nation's media and telecommunications industries. In > 2012, former Commissioner Copps joined Common Cause to lead its Media and > Democracy Reform Initiative. Common Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit > advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John Gardner as a vehicle for > citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold > their elected leaders accountable to the public interest. > > Unsubscribe from this newsletter > > Forward this newsletter > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Communications-related Headlines is a free online news summary service > provided by the Benton Foundation (www.benton.org). > Posted Monday through Friday, this service provides updates on important > industry developments, policy issues, and other related news events. While > the summaries are factually accurate, their often informal tone does not > always represent the tone of the original articles. Headlines are compiled > by Kevin Taglang -- we welcome your comments. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > (c)Benton Foundation 2013. Redistribution of this email publication -- > both internally and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this > message. For subscribe/unsubscribe info email: headlines AT benton DOT org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > The Benton Foundation (www.benton.org) > works to realize the social benefits made possible by the public interest > use of communications. Bridging the worlds of philanthropy, public policy, > and community action, Benton seeks to shape the emerging communications > environment and to demonstrate the value of communications for solving > social problems. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Kevin Taglang > Editor, Communications-related Headlines > Benton Foundation > Communications in the Public Interest > 1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200 > Washington, DC 20036 > headlines AT benton DOT 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 > > -- Devon Blake ICT and Development Consultant 29 Dominica Drive Kgn 5 ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 To be kind, To be helpful, To network *Earthwise ... For Life!* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Nov 22 13:03:15 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:03:15 -0300 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: <122601cee6ec$2fee2690$8fca73b0$@gmail.com> References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com> <0E149A89-BCB0-4F69-A0F5-F4571521B1BB@uzh.ch> <122601cee6ec$2fee2690$8fca73b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <558DFC58-A068-4BC4-88B6-D3DA58B30FD8@uzh.ch> Hi Michael On Nov 21, 2013, at 4:02 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Thanks for the endorsement Bill, but you left out what I consider to be a crucial element which is that that support should not be done simply by attempting to incorporate/co-opt civil society within ICANN (as seems to be the current direction) but rather to provide a means for the independent support of an independent, broadly based and inclusive Civil Society—not an easy task to accomplish but not I think, impossible. I have no idea on what basis you are characterizing “the current direction” in that manner. What conversations with whom have you had that gives you this special insight about “co-optation” being underway? All I have heard, which was responsive to your prior comment so I replied, is that ICANN recognizes that CS needs to be fully included in the effort. > > A useful example with some (but not total) relevance is the support that OSI provided for CSISAC at the OECD, which among other things, So you’re talking about money? I’ve not heard discussions of money, just of ensuring the platform is open to all in terms of participation and inputs. > allowed for the hiring of a (part-time) CS coordinator and some (limited) funds for selected/expert CS participation in various OECD substantive activities/events. BTW one of the reasons that this worked to the degree that it did was that the funding went (indirectly) to CSISAC and the co-ordinator reported to the Steering Committee rather than for example, the funding being given to one or another of the organizational members of CSISAC who then had the responsibility for (opportunity to) pick and choose re: how the funds were spent (which inevitably leads to suspicion and bad feeling). > > Of course, the OECD is quite a different space from the IG one but various groupings within CS including notably a lot of the current parties in the IG CS space have managed to cooperate and accomplish quite a great deal as a result, in large part, of the (quite modest) financial support provided by OSI. Yes, it’s a different space. But at this point we’re still talking about much more basic things, like what the framework for participation in planning arrangements will be, how people will provide inputs, etc. The Brazilians will have more to say after their meeting Monday. Best, Bill > > M, > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:38 AM > To: Governance; michael gurstein > Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Subject: Re: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges > > On Nov 21, 2013, at 2:27 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > Many are uneasy with this but if ICANN wishes to occupy that role (and given their privileged financial position as gatekeeper/rent extractor they are in a position to present themselves for this) then they have an interest in/responsibility for supporting the weakest link in that multi-stakeholder Internet ecology i.e. Civil Society. > > I can endorse the second lat of the sentence, and we have communicated this to Fadi and senior staff in some detail. They say they get it. > > Bill > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Fri Nov 22 13:13:47 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 23:43:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Global governance and global IG In-Reply-To: <528F1F2D.8040000@itforchange.net> References: <528F1F2D.8040000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <528F9EDB.30309@ITforChange.net> Climate change is an issue where developed countries are putting their own narrow interests on top, and refusing to entertain legitimate demands of the developing countries... and in this space (like many others), global civil society is mostly with the cause of the developing countries. see below (http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/ngos-walk-out-of-warsaw-talks/article5376547.ece ) /excerpt// ///"In a rare sign of frustration and solidarity, over 800 representatives of NGOs staged a walkout from the climate negotiations here, citing lack of commitment from developed countries and *take over by corporate interests.*The environmental NGOs have always been an integral part of the climate talks and are allowed to not only sit in and watch the negotiations but also intervene at times with their demands. “How many more years should we wait while people face the fury of climate change now? Climate talks in Warsaw are supposed to create solutions to deal with increasing typhoons, rising seas and dying species. Instead of leading at these talks, rich countries are back-tracking, blocking and taking U-turns. This has become the norm and this must change,” said Harjeet Singh from ActionAid International before joining the walkout. The developed countries have collectively blocked progress on two key issues — Loss and Damage and delivering finance to the poor countries.On a third track, negotiations have been dragging for three days with the rich countries trying to break the firewall between the developed and the developing countries and hence reneging on their commitments to fight climate, /end of excerpt //// / In the IG space, we have seen large parts of civil society push the hegemonic agenda of the USG and US based transnationals partnership .... even as Snowden exposures point out to the extra-ordinary collusion between the USG and these large corporates in promoting their political and economic interests at the cost of others... And in the IGC we have even had strong arguments on how private sector needs to sit as an equal on the policy table... though its obvious that this can only serve to stall any regulation in the public interest. It is unfortunate that these sections of IG civil society seem oblivious to the danger that perhaps the biggest threat to the world, its democracy as well its economic egalitarianism, is the systemic neo-liberalisation of society. The case of climate change governance in which corporates wielding unprecedented political (not just economic) role and influence are able to thwart meaningful regulation/policy that is much needed in global public interest is seen in the cited article. Its even more unfortunate that sections of IG civil society are ready to actively support and enable corporatist governance models (basically 'decision making on equal footing' model) which will ensurecontinuance and further strengthening of the political-economic hegemony in IG. regards, Guru -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Nov 22 13:30:50 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:30:50 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] AC MS e-glasnots In-Reply-To: <7ED1CEBA-B13F-4169-B1ED-3930F7AAFE67@istaff.org> References: <7ED1CEBA-B13F-4169-B1ED-3930F7AAFE67@istaff.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Nov 22 14:47:25 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:47:25 -0200 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: <558DFC58-A068-4BC4-88B6-D3DA58B30FD8@uzh.ch> References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com> <0E149A89-BCB0-4F69-A0F5-F4571521B1BB@uzh.ch> <122601cee6ec$2fee2690$8fca73b0$@gmail.com> <558DFC58-A068-4BC4-88B6-D3DA58B30FD8@uzh.ch> Message-ID: As far as I could notice in my first ICANN meeting, there is still no clear understanding that ICANN serves the public good. This line is becoming more prominent in speeches, but the assimilation and the interpretation of what this "public responsibility" entails varies a lot across the organization. I can't remember hearing words like "development" and "human rights". Competition seems to be used in place of development, as if one thing would necessarily entail the other. And competition should be achieved by market forces, not through policy (ex: making the application for new gTLDs less expensive for developing country applicants was not approved some time ago). I don't think that arguments such as "the responsibility to support the weakest link" would mean much in a high policy dialogue inside ICANN. On the best case, my feeling is that it would translate into support for the attendance of some constituency members or more fellowships. It does not mean, however, that we should demonize the space or stay away from it. It was created with this DNA for historical and political reasons. It is up to people who believe that the idea of the "public good" and "development" and "rights" should be reinforced to be there and shape it. The much necessary internationalization would not translate into significant changes on the operational level, unless these different views are strengthened from within. Marília On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:03 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Michael > > On Nov 21, 2013, at 4:02 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Thanks for the endorsement Bill, but you left out what I consider to be a > crucial element which is that that support should not be done simply by > attempting to incorporate/co-opt civil society within ICANN (as seems to be > the current direction) but rather to provide a means for the independent > support of an independent, broadly based and inclusive Civil Society—not an > easy task to accomplish but not I think, impossible. > > > I have no idea on what basis you are characterizing “the current > direction” in that manner. What conversations with whom have you had that > gives you this special insight about “co-optation” being underway? All I > have heard, which was responsive to your prior comment so I replied, is > that ICANN recognizes that CS needs to be fully included in the effort. > > > A useful example with some (but not total) relevance is the support that > OSI provided for CSISAC at the OECD, which among other things, > > > So you’re talking about money? I’ve not heard discussions of money, just > of ensuring the platform is open to all in terms of participation and > inputs. > > allowed for the hiring of a (part-time) CS coordinator and some (limited) > funds for selected/expert CS participation in various OECD substantive > activities/events. BTW one of the reasons that this worked to the degree > that it did was that the funding went (indirectly) to CSISAC and the > co-ordinator reported to the Steering Committee rather than for example, > the funding being given to one or another of the organizational members of > CSISAC who then had the responsibility for (opportunity to) pick and choose > re: how the funds were spent (which inevitably leads to suspicion and bad > feeling). > > Of course, the OECD is quite a different space from the IG one but various > groupings within CS including notably a lot of the current parties in the > IG CS space have managed to cooperate and accomplish quite a great deal as > a result, in large part, of the (quite modest) financial support provided > by OSI. > > > Yes, it’s a different space. But at this point we’re still talking about > much more basic things, like what the framework for participation in > planning arrangements will be, how people will provide inputs, etc. The > Brazilians will have more to say after their meeting Monday. > > Best, > > Bill > > > M, > > *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch ] > > *Sent:* Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:38 AM > *To:* Governance; michael gurstein > *Cc:* Suresh Ramasubramanian > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to > address new Internet governance challenges > > On Nov 21, 2013, at 2:27 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > Many are uneasy with this but if ICANN wishes to occupy that role (and > given their privileged financial position as gatekeeper/rent extractor they > are in a position to present themselves for this) then they have an > interest in/responsibility for supporting the weakest link in that > multi-stakeholder Internet ecology i.e. Civil Society. > > I can endorse the second lat of the sentence, and we have communicated > this to Fadi and senior staff in some detail. They say they get it. > > 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 > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 22 18:29:29 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 04:59:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com> <0E149A89-BCB0-4F69-A0F5-F4571521B1BB@uzh.ch> <122601cee6ec$2fee2690$8fca73b0$@gmail.com> <558DFC58-A068-4BC4-88B6-D3DA58B30FD8@uzh.ch> Message-ID: +1 I see some of the most heated criticism of ICANN here from people who refuse to participate in it, and who have never attended a single ICANN meeting, submitted a single proposal through ICANN. ICANN has enough critics from inside that seek to work with its process. Milton for example who has been oddly silent over the past several months on this list - and who I have had my differences with almost as often as I have found myself agreeing with him. --srs (iPad) > On 23-Nov-2013, at 1:17, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > As far as I could notice in my first ICANN meeting, there is still no clear understanding that ICANN serves the public good. This line is becoming more prominent in speeches, but the assimilation and the interpretation of what this "public responsibility" entails varies a lot across the organization. I can't remember hearing words like "development" and "human rights". Competition seems to be used in place of development, as if one thing would necessarily entail the other. And competition should be achieved by market forces, not through policy (ex: making the application for new gTLDs less expensive for developing country applicants was not approved some time ago). > > I don't think that arguments such as "the responsibility to support the weakest link" would mean much in a high policy dialogue inside ICANN. On the best case, my feeling is that it would translate into support for the attendance of some constituency members or more fellowships. It does not mean, however, that we should demonize the space or stay away from it. It was created with this DNA for historical and political reasons. It is up to people who believe that the idea of the "public good" and "development" and "rights" should be reinforced to be there and shape it. The much necessary internationalization would not translate into significant changes on the operational level, unless these different views are strengthened from within. > > Marília > > > >> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:03 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi Michael >> >>> On Nov 21, 2013, at 4:02 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for the endorsement Bill, but you left out what I consider to be a crucial element which is that that support should not be done simply by attempting to incorporate/co-opt civil society within ICANN (as seems to be the current direction) but rather to provide a means for the independent support of an independent, broadly based and inclusive Civil Society—not an easy task to accomplish but not I think, impossible. >> >> I have no idea on what basis you are characterizing “the current direction” in that manner. What conversations with whom have you had that gives you this special insight about “co-optation” being underway? All I have heard, which was responsive to your prior comment so I replied, is that ICANN recognizes that CS needs to be fully included in the effort. >> >>> >>> A useful example with some (but not total) relevance is the support that OSI provided for CSISAC at the OECD, which among other things, >> >> So you’re talking about money? I’ve not heard discussions of money, just of ensuring the platform is open to all in terms of participation and inputs. >> >>> allowed for the hiring of a (part-time) CS coordinator and some (limited) funds for selected/expert CS participation in various OECD substantive activities/events. BTW one of the reasons that this worked to the degree that it did was that the funding went (indirectly) to CSISAC and the co-ordinator reported to the Steering Committee rather than for example, the funding being given to one or another of the organizational members of CSISAC who then had the responsibility for (opportunity to) pick and choose re: how the funds were spent (which inevitably leads to suspicion and bad feeling). >>> >>> Of course, the OECD is quite a different space from the IG one but various groupings within CS including notably a lot of the current parties in the IG CS space have managed to cooperate and accomplish quite a great deal as a result, in large part, of the (quite modest) financial support provided by OSI. >> >> Yes, it’s a different space. But at this point we’re still talking about much more basic things, like what the framework for participation in planning arrangements will be, how people will provide inputs, etc. The Brazilians will have more to say after their meeting Monday. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >>> >>> M, >>> >>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] >>> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:38 AM >>> To: Governance; michael gurstein >>> Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges >>> >>> On Nov 21, 2013, at 2:27 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> >>> >>> Many are uneasy with this but if ICANN wishes to occupy that role (and given their privileged financial position as gatekeeper/rent extractor they are in a position to present themselves for this) then they have an interest in/responsibility for supporting the weakest link in that multi-stakeholder Internet ecology i.e. Civil Society. >>> >>> I can endorse the second lat of the sentence, and we have communicated this to Fadi and senior staff in some detail. They say they get it. >>> >>> 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 > > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 23 04:05:17 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 10:05:17 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Global governance and global IG Message-ID: <527247873.2689.1385197517331.JavaMail.www@wwinf2204> +1 for me Dear Guru I support your view, parallelling both global events, the IGF and the CC process. I'd even like to extend the parallel to the whole WSIS. But for taking a courageous decision such as that of our friend organizations in the framework of the CC Global Conference, CS needs at least to debate in its plenary. However, since some years we never had a plenary meeting during the "WSIS Fora". IMO, this is why the whole WSIS process is faltering and unproductive, except for shows and self-commending of some people. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack Message du 22/11/13 19:14 > De : "Guru गुरु" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Global governance and global IG > > Climate change is an issue where developed countries are putting their own narrow interests on top, and refusing to entertain legitimate demands of the developing countries... and in this space (like many others), global civil society is mostly with the cause of the developing countries. see below (http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/ngos-walk-out-of-warsaw-talks/article5376547.ece ) > > excerpt > "In a rare sign of frustration and solidarity, over 800 representatives of NGOs staged a walkout from the climate negotiations here, citing lack of commitment from developed countries and take over by corporate interests.The environmental NGOs have always been an integral part of the climate talks and are allowed to not only sit in and watch the negotiations but also intervene at times with their demands. “How many more years should we wait while people face the fury of climate change now? Climate talks in Warsaw are supposed to create solutions to deal with increasing typhoons, rising seas and dying species. Instead of leading at these talks, rich countries are back-tracking, blocking and taking U-turns. This has become the norm and this must change,” said Harjeet Singh from ActionAid International before joining the walkout. The developed countries have collectively blocked progress on two key issues — Loss and Damage and delivering finance to the poor countries.On a third track, negotiations have been dragging for three days with the rich countries trying to break the firewall between the developed and the developing countries and hence reneging on their commitments to fight climate, > end of excerpt > > In the IG space, we have seen large parts of civil society push the hegemonic agenda of the USG and US based transnationals partnership .... even as Snowden exposures point out to the extra-ordinary collusion between the USG and these large corporates in promoting their political and economic interests at the cost of others... And in the IGC we have even had strong arguments on how private sector needs to sit as an equal on the policy table... though its obvious that this can only serve to stall any regulation in the public interest. > > It is unfortunate that these sections of IG civil society seem oblivious to the danger that perhaps the biggest threat to the world, its democracy as well its economic egalitarianism, is the systemic neo-liberalisation of society. The case of climate change governance in which corporates wielding unprecedented political (not just economic) role and influence are able to thwart meaningful regulation/policy that is much needed in global public interest is seen in the cited article. Its even more unfortunate that sections of IG civil society are ready to actively support and enable corporatist governance models (basically 'decision making on equal footing' model) which will ensure continuance and further strengthening of the political-economic hegemony in IG. > > regards, > Guru > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Nov 23 07:57:38 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 18:27:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit In-Reply-To: <7511B518-ED0C-4738-98E3-96E77C013102@uzh.ch> References: <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk> <2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org> <-562132103237437841@unknownmsgid> <52901559.6050508@itforchange.net> <7511B518-ED0C-4738-98E3-96E77C013102@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <5290A642.4010302@itforchange.net> On Saturday 23 November 2013 05:33 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Parminder, FWIW the term orphaned issues has been around since before > we met in Tunis, e.g Hi Bill, thanks for this information. I correct myself. > I used it in a presentation to the UNICT TF forum at UN NYC in March > 2004 in arguing for creation of a new mechanism and in many places > since, including the consultations on creating IGF in 2004, the WGIG > book in 2005, in four workshops etc. pushing for IG4D to be on the IGF > agenda subsequently (see the Sharm book)... In fact, it’s also in the > IGC's July 2005 response to the WGIG report—i.e. the IGF mandate > should include "identification of weaknesses and gaps in > the governance architecture, i.e. ‘orphaned' or multidimensional > issues that do not fall neatly within the ambit of any existing body.” To the extent that we can all agree that there are indeed many issues that are not being dealt by current mechanisms, that is a good start for doing the real work of thinking about the needed mechanisms. (and of course, post WSIS the list of much issues has only grown tremendously.) Marilia on the behalf of CTS, Brazil, and our organisation held a workshop in Nairobi on this issue. Markus speaking for ISOC was specifically asked about these non ICANN and non tech issues and he said that (more or less) all of these are being dealt by one global agency or the other.... In that sense I think that the tech community was in denial with regard to these issues, which they have shed now. However, I still hear a lot of people in civil society being doubtful (or simply denying) that there are such public policy issues that need a new mechanism... Even after 10 years of WSIS, they say lets first map and find out if there are indeed such issues (when even WGIG listed enough of them).... and therefore this denial in terms of Internet-related public policy issues (that are either not at all, or not adequately, dealt by existing mechanisms) continues to be widespread. > > It’s fine if you don’t want to use the term now, but it most certainly > was not intended to give issues that are subject to no global > governance mechanisms a subsidiary or weaker status—precisely the > opposite. And in any event, this is one thing you can’t blame on the > technical community :-) About the forthcoming Brazil meeting, I remain most concerned by the repeated statements emanating from ICANN/ I* quarters to the effect that they face “growing pressures to address issues outside its sphere of responsibility" . This appears very strange to me.... Who is applying such pressure? Can they recognise those parties for us. Because I know none. This to me looks like a self-asserted demand coming for the global IG system status quoists. And of course the idea is to somehow extend the ICANN model of governance to these "issues outside its sphere of responsibility" , which are the numerous Internet-related public policy issues. It is in this sense, that I said that in tech community's mind these issues seem to be of a lower/ subsidiary status, whereby probably ICANN model can be extended to them. But I understand what you mean above -- they have indeed always been very concerned that the manner of dealing with these 'Internet-related public policy' issues would somehow interfere with the freedom of their own work. This is a legitimate fear. best, parminder > > Cheers > > Bill > > On Nov 22, 2013, at 11:39 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> I will like to participate in all.... >> >> Meanwhile, I had requested on the 'summit' sublist of BB that the >> term 'orphan issues' is loaded and that the more appropriate term >> from Tunis agenda 'Internet-related public policy issues' be used >> under 3.2 below. I think Jeremy did change it then as per my suggestion. >> >> The term 'orphan issues' was essentially introduced recently by the >> I* star group. To me it gives 'public policy issues' a status of kind >> of subsidiarity or dependency (in any case, certainly a lower status) >> to 'IG issues of technical nature' that I* deals with - whereby it >> becomes more 'logical' to extend the ICANN model of governance to >> substantive public policy issues.... >> >> parminder >> >> On Saturday 23 November 2013 02:03 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> >>> OUTPUTS >>> >>> 1. Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote >>> participation, stakeholder representation and selection) >>> 2. Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on >>> Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents). >>> 3. Substantive input on an institutional framework for >>> multistakeholder Internet governance including: >>> 1. Internationalisation of ICANN (based on existing work done >>> by Internet Governance Project and/or others). >>> 2. Orphan issues (based on existing proposals put before the >>> WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group). >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Sat Nov 23 11:03:46 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 13:03:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons In-Reply-To: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> Message-ID: <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> Hi, Ian, Sala and I talked while we were both in Buenos Aires. Perhaps I can clarify my sense of what she may have been proposing. There is at the moment somewhat of a gulf between the technical community and the list(s) used by the proclaimed representatives of civil society. Sometimes such differences of opinion, as well as fact, can be resoled rather quickly if they are discussed directly by people on both sides of the issue, rather than being left to fester and feed growing suspicion and/or discontent. I think that Sala thought that having some announced or implied line of communication, clearly non-exclusive, might be helpful at times. I thought so, too. Having seen little response from anyone on this list, perhaps the idea isn't welcome in the more formalized sense in which it has been presented, and I can understand that. I think that perhaps I could be more active from time to time in the discussions that occur, and that might help to bridge some differences between the communities. Although I consider myself more technical in the context of Internet governance discussions, I do have roots in development activities that are quite consistent with some of the expressions of opinion posted to this and similar lists. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Nov 18, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Sala, > > a matter of clarification please. > > Are you suggesting that George be a point of liaison within the technical community for civil society, or that George be a civil society representative liaising with the technical community? > > I am all in favour of the former, and admire George’s work, but I doubt whether George would be entirely comfortable with the latter role and even if he was I doubt that would be acceptable to many on this list. > > Ian Peter > > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:20 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Cc: George Sadowsky > Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons > > Dear IGC, > > As you can imagine, since Bali and in light of the “multistakeholder” event that will be hosted by the Brazil on the future on Internet Governance called: "Global Multistakeholder > Meeting on the Future on Internet Governance," it becomes inherently critical that we start preparing to shape the Agenda. Many thanks to Carlos and Hartmut for keeping us informed of what is happening within Brazil and for taking the time to translate from Portuguese to English when the need demands. Unfortunately, there were no live transcripts although transcripts will be provided unlike the live stream available to the GAC community (tongue in cheek). To watch the vide of Fadi speaking: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157637762195684 > > ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadi spoke about the manner in which ICANN is going to engage in what I thought was a very mature response symbolic of the desire to engage with communities. > > As you can imagine in the lead up to the preparations for 2014 we as global civil society need to consolidate to prepare. There have been discussions going on offlist amongst the various facilitators of some of the core civil society groups about how this is to take place where it has centered on the possibilities of a joint framework for engagement of civil society including Multistakeholder selection processes for some of the key positions. There was suggestion to experiment first with the combined NomCom for the MAG and I highlighted that this could be difficult in light of the pressing deadlines. There may be room however for joint endorsements but I will leave this to the NomCom Chair. At this point, I do not want to burden our NomCom as they are working against a very narrow and tight deadline. Whilst we are waiting for the other groups to comment on coordinated and shared framework for engagement, I would like to propose the following to the IGC. > > Given that we do not have time nor the resources, it has been by way of an ad hoc nature common for people who are involved in foras or diverse communities to provide feedback on what is happening randomly. This to a large extent happens but my sense is that we need to be better coordinated and have different people watch the different spaces they are in and liaise back with the IGC. I suggested that this could be done with and through combined civil society but I think we need to pick up the pace and start anyway whilst waiting. > > To this extent, I would propose that in the spirit of enhanced cooperation that we use our own people within civil society who happen to wear multiple hats to act as liaisons, even if temporary at this point until such time where we can coordinate more permanent representation. I feel that the IGC should have liaisons in the following circles: > > · Technical Community > · Business Community > · Governments > > The liaisons role would be to be a bridge into these communities to channel developments of what is happening within these communities that are of relevance to civil society and also from time to time raise the issues of civil society or broker and facilitate the process through which these views can be heard. If there are people who feel they can function in these roles, we need volunteers. This is to ensure that we know what is happening at all times. > > The IGC has two options, we can utilize a formal process and invite calls for nominations and have a NomCom make the selection. On another note, we can maintain the informal ad hoc liaison process that is currently in place. My personal preference is for the latter to allow for volunteers who are consistent and command the respect of the diverse communities. > > Given the current deadlines and politics surrounding the 2014 Meeting in Brazil, I propose that we have George Sadowski to act as liaison for us to the technical community. I am of the view that we can have at least two to three liaisons as the Technical Community is diverse and spread out between the ETSI, W3C, ITU-T, IETF, ICANN, IAB, RIR etc. For now the liaison function can be limited to the developments of the Rio engagement with room to evolve into identifying issues affecting global public interest that civil society might want to monitor in a consistent and cohesive manner. Whilst George is also a member of the ICANN Board, I am not asking him as an ICANN Board member but as a member of the IGC. > > If there are those that wish to join George in this role, there is nothing stopping a list of volunteers from being part of a team that condenses the issues in diverse stratas and feeds it back into the IGC in a consolidated manner. > > As we engage in coming to the table to set the Agenda, we need to do so intelligently and cohesively and in a coordinated manner. This was one of the things raised in the meeting in Bali- > > In the future as the IGC evolves, there is space to develop a working group to focus on technical and policy stratas that we may wish to organize our advocacies in. For a long while, advocacy has been happening via individuals or groups that have pet topics and issues. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > (In my personal capacity) > > George Sadowski Profile and Biography > GEORGE SADOWSKY: BIOGRAPHY > George Sadowsky is currently a member of the Board of Directors of ICANN (Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and a consultant to, inter alia, the World Wide > Web Foundation and NATO. > He received an A.B. degree with honors in Mathematics from Harvard College and M.A. and > Ph.D. degrees in Economics from Yale University. After spending 1958-1962 as an applied > mathematician and programmer, his career concentrated on applying computers to economic > and social policy, leading academic computing and networking organizations, and making > information and communication technologies (ICTs) useful throughout the world. In 1963-64 he > introduced the use of microsimulation for tax analysis purposes in the U.S. Treasury Department. > During 1966-1970 he founded and directed the Computer Center at the Brookings Institution in > Washington; from 1970-73 he did economic research at the Urban Institute leading to his Ph.D, > dissertation on the subject of micro-analytic simulation of the household sector. > During 1973-86 at the United Nations, he supported the transfer of information technology to > developing countries. He has done work in more than 50 developing countries and continues to > do so. Among other things, he introduced the use of microcomputers for census data processing > in Africa in 1979, and he worked in China during 1982-1986 supporting the computing activities > of their 1982 Census of Population and Housing. > From 1986 to 2001, he directed academic computing and networking activities, first at > Northwestern University and then at New York University. He has been a consultant to the U.S. > Treasury Department, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, UNDP, the Swiss Government, > and a number of foundations. He was a Board member of AppliedTheory Corporation and was a > Trustee of the Corporation for Research and Educational Networking (CREN) and the New York > State Educational and Research Network (NYSERNet). He was actively involved in World > Bank activities during 1996-2002 as a member and Coordinator of the Technical Advisory > Panel for the infoDev program, as well as in UNDP and USAID activities. In 1994, he and Larry > Landweber formulated USAID's Leland Initiative for providing initial Internet connectivity > for 20 African countries. He was a member of the Internet Society Board of Trustees during > 1996-1999 and 2000-2004 and served as Vice President for Conferences (1996-1998) and Vice- > President for Education (1998-2001). He headed a group of ISOC volunteers who defined and > conducted the ISOC Developing Country Network Training Workshops during 1993 -2001. > More recently, he was the Executive Director of the Global Internet Policy Initiative (GIPI) > from 2001-2006, which had active ongoing Internet policy reform projects in 17 countries. He > also served as Senior Technical Adviser within USAID's dot-GOV program for the Internews > Consortium, providing ICT policy assistance to the developing world. He has served as an > expert witness for litigation in the United Kingdom and the United States. He was a special > adviser to Nitin Desai, the Chair of the UN Secretary-General's Internet Governance Forum > as well as to the Chair of UN G at ID. He has served as a member of the PIR (Public Internet > Registry) Advisory Board, and he is currently a member of the ICANN (Internet Corporation for > Assigned Names and Numbers) Board of Directors He has written and lectured extensively on > Please refer to his web site, http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ as well as the GIPI web site, http:// > www.internetpolicy.net, for additional information. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 23 11:10:22 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 11:10:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons In-Reply-To: <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi George, On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:03 AM, George Sadowsky wrote: > Hi, Ian, > > Sala and I talked while we were both in Buenos Aires. Perhaps I can > clarify my sense of what she may have been proposing. > > There is at the moment somewhat of a gulf between the technical community > and the list(s) used by the proclaimed representatives of civil society. > Sometimes such differences of opinion, as well as fact, can be resoled > rather quickly if they are discussed directly by people on both sides of > the issue, rather than being left to fester and feed growing suspicion > and/or discontent. I think that Sala thought that having some announced or > implied line of communication, clearly non-exclusive, might be helpful at > times. I thought so, too. > > Having seen little response from anyone on this list, > I didn't react, as I wasn't sure if this is something you were volunteering for, or being volunteered for. Now that i know that you are fine with the role, I am happy to endorse the idea! -- 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Nov 23 11:12:41 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 17:12:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGlasnost: Internet Collaborative Stewardship Framework Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 23 11:17:49 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 11:17:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons In-Reply-To: <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Ian and others, I apologise I was in the middle of a very intense week and having food allergies did not help my keeping up with the listserv. As you can imagine, there is an ever more present need to have people who can be bridges between diverse constituencies and George is well placed to be a bridge. This does not have to be formal and can be ad hoc and if George is willing, we should welcome this. Personally, I would be grateful to George for stepping up to help bridge the differences and he is someone who has the respect of the technical community. He is an amazing person in that whilst we may disagree from time to time on certain issues, his capacity to engage, dialogue and communicate is awesome. George has a great heart and love for the Internet, development and is someone whom I would strongly recommend to help us bridge the gaps. Best Regards, Sala On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:03 AM, George Sadowsky wrote: > Hi, Ian, > > Sala and I talked while we were both in Buenos Aires. Perhaps I can > clarify my sense of what she may have been proposing. > > There is at the moment somewhat of a gulf between the technical community > and the list(s) used by the proclaimed representatives of civil society. > Sometimes such differences of opinion, as well as fact, can be resoled > rather quickly if they are discussed directly by people on both sides of > the issue, rather than being left to fester and feed growing suspicion > and/or discontent. I think that Sala thought that having some announced or > implied line of communication, clearly non-exclusive, might be helpful at > times. I thought so, too. > > Having seen little response from anyone on this list, perhaps the idea > isn't welcome in the more formalized sense in which it has been presented, > and I can understand that. I think that perhaps I could be more active > from time to time in the discussions that occur, and that might help to > bridge some differences between the communities. Although I consider > myself more technical in the context of Internet governance discussions, I > do have roots in development activities that are quite consistent with > some of the expressions of opinion posted to this and similar lists. > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > On Nov 18, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Hi Sala, > > a matter of clarification please. > > Are you suggesting that George be a point of liaison within the technical > community for civil society, or that George be a civil society > representative liaising with the technical community? > > I am all in favour of the former, and admire George’s work, but I doubt > whether George would be entirely comfortable with the latter role and even > if he was I doubt that would be acceptable to many on this list. > > Ian Peter > > *From:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > *Sent:* Monday, November 18, 2013 4:20 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Cc:* George Sadowsky > *Subject:* [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need > for IGC and civil society Liaisons > > > Dear IGC, > > As you can imagine, since Bali and in light of the “multistakeholder” > event that will be hosted by the Brazil on the future on Internet > Governance called: > *"Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future on Internet Governance," *it > becomes inherently critical that we start preparing to shape the Agenda. > Many thanks to Carlos and Hartmut for keeping us informed of what is > happening within Brazil and for taking the time to translate from > Portuguese to English when the need demands. Unfortunately, there were no > live transcripts although transcripts will be provided unlike the live > stream available to the GAC community (tongue in cheek). To watch the > vide of Fadi speaking: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157637762195684 > > > ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadi spoke about the manner in which ICANN is going to > engage in what I thought was a very mature response symbolic of the desire > to engage with communities. > > As you can imagine in the lead up to the preparations for 2014 we as > global civil society need to consolidate to prepare. There have been > discussions going on offlist amongst the various facilitators of some of > the core civil society groups about how this is to take place where it has > centered on the possibilities of a joint framework for engagement of civil > society including Multistakeholder selection processes for some of the > key positions. There was suggestion to experiment first with the combined > NomCom for the MAG and I highlighted that this could be difficult in light > of the pressing deadlines. There may be room however for joint > endorsements but I will leave this to the NomCom Chair. At this point, I do > not want to burden our NomCom as they are working against a very narrow and > tight deadline. Whilst we are waiting for the other groups to comment on > coordinated and shared framework for engagement, I would like to propose > the following to the IGC. > > Given that we do not have time nor the resources, it has been by way of an > ad hoc nature common for people who are involved in foras or diverse > communities to provide feedback on what is happening randomly. This to a > large extent happens but my sense is that we need to be better coordinated > and have different people watch the different spaces they are in and liaise > back with the IGC. I suggested that this could be done with and through > combined civil society but I think we need to pick up the pace and start > anyway whilst waiting. > > To this extent, I would propose that in the spirit of enhanced cooperation > that we use our own people within civil society who happen to wear multiple > hats to act as liaisons, even if temporary at this point until such time > where we can coordinate more permanent representation. I feel that the IGC > should have liaisons in the following circles: > · Technical Community > · Business Community > > · Governments > > The liaisons role would be to be a bridge into these communities to > channel developments of what is happening within these communities that are > of relevance to civil society and also from time to time raise the issues > of civil society or broker and facilitate the process through which these > views can be heard. If there are people who feel they can function in these > roles, we need volunteers. This is to ensure that we know what is happening > at all times. > > The IGC has two options, we can utilize a formal process and invite calls > for nominations and have a NomCom make the selection. On another note, we > can maintain the informal ad hoc liaison process that is currently in > place. My personal preference is for the latter to allow for volunteers who > are consistent and command the respect of the diverse communities. > > Given the current deadlines and politics surrounding the 2014 Meeting in > Brazil, I propose that we have *George Sadowski *to act as liaison for us > to the technical community. I am of the view that we can have at least two > to three liaisons as the Technical Community is diverse and spread out > between the ETSI, W3C, ITU-T, IETF, ICANN, IAB, RIR etc. For now the > liaison function can be limited to the developments of the Rio engagement > with room to evolve into identifying issues affecting global public > interest that civil society might want to monitor in a consistent and > cohesive manner. Whilst George is also a member of the ICANN Board, I am > not asking him as an ICANN Board member but as a member of the IGC. > > If there are those that wish to join George in this role, there is > nothing stopping a list of volunteers from being part of a team that > condenses the issues in diverse stratas and feeds it back into the IGC in a > consolidated manner. > > As we engage in coming to the table to set the Agenda, we need to do so > intelligently and cohesively and in a coordinated manner. This was one of > the things raised in the meeting in Bali- > In the future as the IGC evolves, there is space to develop a working > group to focus on technical and policy stratas that we may wish to organize > our advocacies in. For a long while, advocacy has been happening via > individuals or groups that have pet topics and issues. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > (In my personal capacity) > > George Sadowski Profile and Biography > GEORGE SADOWSKY: BIOGRAPHY > George Sadowsky is currently a member of the Board of Directors of ICANN > (Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and a consultant to, inter > alia, the World Wide > Web Foundation and NATO. > He received an A.B. degree with honors in Mathematics from Harvard College > and M.A. and > Ph.D. degrees in Economics from Yale University. After spending 1958-1962 > as an applied > mathematician and programmer, his career concentrated on applying > computers to economic > and social policy, leading academic computing and networking > organizations, and making > information and communication technologies (ICTs) useful throughout the > world. In 1963-64 he > introduced the use of microsimulation for tax analysis purposes in the > U.S. Treasury Department. > During 1966-1970 he founded and directed the Computer Center at the > Brookings Institution in > Washington; from 1970-73 he did economic research at the Urban Institute > leading to his Ph.D, > dissertation on the subject of micro-analytic simulation of the household > sector. > During 1973-86 at the United Nations, he supported the transfer of > information technology to > developing countries. He has done work in more than 50 developing > countries and continues to > do so. Among other things, he introduced the use of microcomputers for > census data processing > in Africa in 1979, and he worked in China during 1982-1986 supporting the > computing activities > of their 1982 Census of Population and Housing. > From 1986 to 2001, he directed academic computing and networking > activities, first at > Northwestern University and then at New York University. He has been a > consultant to the U.S. > Treasury Department, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, UNDP, the Swiss > Government, > and a number of foundations. He was a Board member of AppliedTheory > Corporation and was a > Trustee of the Corporation for Research and Educational Networking (CREN) > and the New York > State Educational and Research Network (NYSERNet). He was actively > involved in World > Bank activities during 1996-2002 as a member and Coordinator of the > Technical Advisory > Panel for the infoDev program, as well as in UNDP and USAID activities. In > 1994, he and Larry > Landweber formulated USAID's Leland Initiative for providing initial > Internet connectivity > for 20 African countries. He was a member of the Internet Society Board of > Trustees during > 1996-1999 and 2000-2004 and served as Vice President for Conferences > (1996-1998) and Vice- > President for Education (1998-2001). He headed a group of ISOC volunteers > who defined and > conducted the ISOC Developing Country Network Training Workshops during > 1993 -2001. > More recently, he was the Executive Director of the Global Internet Policy > Initiative (GIPI) > from 2001-2006, which had active ongoing Internet policy reform projects > in 17 countries. He > also served as Senior Technical Adviser within USAID's dot-GOV program for > the Internews > Consortium, providing ICT policy assistance to the developing world. He > has served as an > expert witness for litigation in the United Kingdom and the United States. > He was a special > adviser to Nitin Desai, the Chair of the UN Secretary-General's Internet > Governance Forum > as well as to the Chair of UN G at ID. He has served as a member of the PIR > (Public Internet > Registry) Advisory Board, and he is currently a member of the ICANN > (Internet Corporation for > Assigned Names and Numbers) Board of Directors He has written and lectured > extensively on > Please refer to his web site, http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ as well as > the GIPI web site, http:// > www.internetpolicy.net, for additional information. > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 23 11:24:01 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 21:54:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree, and thank George for stepping up to take on such a thankless task. --srs (iPad) > On 23-Nov-2013, at 21:47, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > > Dear Ian and others, > > I apologise I was in the middle of a very intense week and having food allergies did not help my keeping up with the listserv. As you can imagine, there is an ever more present need to have people who can be bridges between diverse constituencies and George is well placed to be a bridge. This does not have to be formal and can be ad hoc and if George is willing, we should welcome this. > > Personally, I would be grateful to George for stepping up to help bridge the differences and he is someone who has the respect of the technical community. He is an amazing person in that whilst we may disagree from time to time on certain issues, his capacity to engage, dialogue and communicate is awesome. George has a great heart and love for the Internet, development and is someone whom I would strongly recommend to help us bridge the gaps. > > Best Regards, > Sala > > >> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:03 AM, George Sadowsky wrote: >> Hi, Ian, >> >> Sala and I talked while we were both in Buenos Aires. Perhaps I can clarify my sense of what she may have been proposing. >> >> There is at the moment somewhat of a gulf between the technical community and the list(s) used by the proclaimed representatives of civil society. Sometimes such differences of opinion, as well as fact, can be resoled rather quickly if they are discussed directly by people on both sides of the issue, rather than being left to fester and feed growing suspicion and/or discontent. I think that Sala thought that having some announced or implied line of communication, clearly non-exclusive, might be helpful at times. I thought so, too. >> >> Having seen little response from anyone on this list, perhaps the idea isn't welcome in the more formalized sense in which it has been presented, and I can understand that. I think that perhaps I could be more active from time to time in the discussions that occur, and that might help to bridge some differences between the communities. Although I consider myself more technical in the context of Internet governance discussions, I do have roots in development activities that are quite consistent with some of the expressions of opinion posted to this and similar lists. >> >> George >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >>> On Nov 18, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sala, >>> >>> a matter of clarification please. >>> >>> Are you suggesting that George be a point of liaison within the technical community for civil society, or that George be a civil society representative liaising with the technical community? >>> >>> I am all in favour of the former, and admire George’s work, but I doubt whether George would be entirely comfortable with the latter role and even if he was I doubt that would be acceptable to many on this list. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:20 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Cc: George Sadowsky >>> Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons >>> >>> Dear IGC, >>> >>> As you can imagine, since Bali and in light of the “multistakeholder” event that will be hosted by the Brazil on the future on Internet Governance called: "Global Multistakeholder >>> Meeting on the Future on Internet Governance," it becomes inherently critical that we start preparing to shape the Agenda. Many thanks to Carlos and Hartmut for keeping us informed of what is happening within Brazil and for taking the time to translate from Portuguese to English when the need demands. Unfortunately, there were no live transcripts although transcripts will be provided unlike the live stream available to the GAC community (tongue in cheek). To watch the vide of Fadi speaking: >>> >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157637762195684 >>> >>> ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadi spoke about the manner in which ICANN is going to engage in what I thought was a very mature response symbolic of the desire to engage with communities. >>> >>> As you can imagine in the lead up to the preparations for 2014 we as global civil society need to consolidate to prepare. There have been discussions going on offlist amongst the various facilitators of some of the core civil society groups about how this is to take place where it has centered on the possibilities of a joint framework for engagement of civil society including Multistakeholder selection processes for some of the key positions. There was suggestion to experiment first with the combined NomCom for the MAG and I highlighted that this could be difficult in light of the pressing deadlines. There may be room however for joint endorsements but I will leave this to the NomCom Chair. At this point, I do not want to burden our NomCom as they are working against a very narrow and tight deadline. Whilst we are waiting for the other groups to comment on coordinated and shared framework for engagement, I would like to propose the following to the IGC. >>> >>> Given that we do not have time nor the resources, it has been by way of an ad hoc nature common for people who are involved in foras or diverse communities to provide feedback on what is happening randomly. This to a large extent happens but my sense is that we need to be better coordinated and have different people watch the different spaces they are in and liaise back with the IGC. I suggested that this could be done with and through combined civil society but I think we need to pick up the pace and start anyway whilst waiting. >>> >>> To this extent, I would propose that in the spirit of enhanced cooperation that we use our own people within civil society who happen to wear multiple hats to act as liaisons, even if temporary at this point until such time where we can coordinate more permanent representation. I feel that the IGC should have liaisons in the following circles: >>> >>> · Technical Community >>> · Business Community >>> · Governments >>> >>> The liaisons role would be to be a bridge into these communities to channel developments of what is happening within these communities that are of relevance to civil society and also from time to time raise the issues of civil society or broker and facilitate the process through which these views can be heard. If there are people who feel they can function in these roles, we need volunteers. This is to ensure that we know what is happening at all times. >>> >>> The IGC has two options, we can utilize a formal process and invite calls for nominations and have a NomCom make the selection. On another note, we can maintain the informal ad hoc liaison process that is currently in place. My personal preference is for the latter to allow for volunteers who are consistent and command the respect of the diverse communities. >>> >>> Given the current deadlines and politics surrounding the 2014 Meeting in Brazil, I propose that we have George Sadowski to act as liaison for us to the technical community. I am of the view that we can have at least two to three liaisons as the Technical Community is diverse and spread out between the ETSI, W3C, ITU-T, IETF, ICANN, IAB, RIR etc. For now the liaison function can be limited to the developments of the Rio engagement with room to evolve into identifying issues affecting global public interest that civil society might want to monitor in a consistent and cohesive manner. Whilst George is also a member of the ICANN Board, I am not asking him as an ICANN Board member but as a member of the IGC. >>> >>> If there are those that wish to join George in this role, there is nothing stopping a list of volunteers from being part of a team that condenses the issues in diverse stratas and feeds it back into the IGC in a consolidated manner. >>> >>> As we engage in coming to the table to set the Agenda, we need to do so intelligently and cohesively and in a coordinated manner. This was one of the things raised in the meeting in Bali- >>> >>> In the future as the IGC evolves, there is space to develop a wo >>> In the future as the IGC evolves, there is space to develop a working group to focus on technical and policy stratas that we may wish to organize our advocacies in. For a long while, advocacy has been happening via individuals or groups that have pet topics and issues. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> (In my personal capacity) >>> >>> George Sadowski Profile and Biography >>> GEORGE SADOWSKY: BIOGRAPHY >>> George Sadowsky is currently a member of the Board of Directors of ICANN (Internet >>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and a consultant to, inter alia, the World Wide >>> Web Foundation and NATO. >>> He received an A.B. degree with honors in Mathematics from Harvard College and M.A. and >>> Ph.D. degrees in Economics from Yale University. After spending 1958-1962 as an applied >>> mathematician and programmer, his career concentrated on applying computers to economic >>> and social policy, leading academic computing and networking organizations, and making >>> information and communication technologies (ICTs) useful throughout the world. In 1963-64 he >>> introduced the use of microsimulation for tax analysis purposes in the U.S. Treasury Department. >>> During 1966-1970 he founded and directed the Computer Center at the Brookings Institution in >>> Washington; from 1970-73 he did economic research at the Urban Institute leading to his Ph.D, >>> dissertation on the subject of micro-analytic simulation of the household sector. >>> During 1973-86 at the United Nations, he supported the transfer of information technology to >>> developing countries. He has done work in more than 50 developing countries and continues to >>> do so. Among other things, he introduced the use of microcomputers for census data processing >>> in Africa in 1979, and he worked in China during 1982-1986 supporting the computing activities >>> of their 1982 Census of Population and Housing. >>> From 1986 to 2001, he directed academic computing and networking activities, first at >>> Northwestern University and then at New York University. He has been a consultant to the U.S. >>> Treasury Department, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, UNDP, the Swiss Government, >>> and a number of foundations. He was a Board member of AppliedTheory Corporation and was a >>> Trustee of the Corporation for Research and Educational Networking (CREN) and the New York >>> State Educational and Research Network (NYSERNet). He was actively involved in World >>> Bank activities during 1996-2002 as a member and Coordinator of the Technical Advisory >>> Panel for the infoDev program, as well as in UNDP and USAID activities. In 1994, he and Larry >>> Landweber formulated USAID's Leland Initiative for providing initial Internet connectivity >>> for 20 African countries. He was a member of the Internet Society Board of Trustees during >>> 1996-1999 and 2000-2004 and served as Vice President for Conferences (1996-1998) and Vice- >>> President for Education (1998-2001). He headed a group of ISOC volunteers who defined and >>> conducted the ISOC Developing Country Network Training Workshops during 1993 -2001. >>> More recently, he was the Executive Director of the Global Internet Policy Initiative (GIPI) >>> from 2001-2006, which had active ongoing Internet policy reform projects in 17 countries. He >>> also served as Senior Technical Adviser within USAID's dot-GOV program for the Internews >>> Consortium, providing ICT policy assistance to the developing world. He has served as an >>> expert witness for litigation in the United Kingdom and the United States. He was a special >>> adviser to Nitin Desai, the Chair of the UN Secretary-General's Internet Governance Forum >>> as well as to the Chair of UN G at ID. He has served as a member of the PIR (Public Internet >>> Registry) Advisory Board, and he is currently a member of the ICANN (Internet Corporation for >>> Assigned Names and Numbers) Board of Directors He has written and lectured extensively on >>> Please refer to his web site, http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ as well as the GIPI web site, http:// >>> www.internetpolicy.net, for additional information. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 23 11:53:33 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 08:53:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons In-Reply-To: <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> Thanks George and it is a potentially interesting proposition. But I must say that I'm unclear as to precisely what role is being suggested here. If the role is to attempt to frame the diversity of voices being articulated in civil society (in my case including those of the community informatics community for example) in a manner in which it can be more readily understood/assimilated/responded to by the technical community I think that is very useful. If it is, on the other hand, to act as a more or less "authoritative"/designated "filter" of communications/voices from Civil Society to the Technical Community then I can see quite considerable difficulty and controversy resulting, if nothing else, from a concern within certain CS elements of being "silenced/ignored". (The same clarification would need to be made if the role is perceived as being more of an "honest broker"-i.e. the question being, particularly on the CS side, how inclusive of all CS interests/voices is the "brokerage" committed/able to be. Perhaps some clarification is in order here either from yourself in how you perceive the role, or from Ian or Sala on how they presented the role (and perceive it from a CS perspective). (I should also possibly add here that a significant number of those active in the Community Informatics community would, by their background, qualifications, experience and current activities qualify as being "techies" of one sort or another. Whether they would qualify as being members of the "Technical Community" (TC) under what I understand to be the criteria for inclusion within the TC as currently defined by the formal TC structures I'm not sure, as their orientation tends to be towards technical design and fabrication in support of social/digital inclusion and social justice.) Best to all, M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:04 AM To: Ian Peter Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons Hi, Ian, Sala and I talked while we were both in Buenos Aires. Perhaps I can clarify my sense of what she may have been proposing. There is at the moment somewhat of a gulf between the technical community and the list(s) used by the proclaimed representatives of civil society. Sometimes such differences of opinion, as well as fact, can be resoled rather quickly if they are discussed directly by people on both sides of the issue, rather than being left to fester and feed growing suspicion and/or discontent. I think that Sala thought that having some announced or implied line of communication, clearly non-exclusive, might be helpful at times. I thought so, too. Having seen little response from anyone on this list, perhaps the idea isn't welcome in the more formalized sense in which it has been presented, and I can understand that. I think that perhaps I could be more active from time to time in the discussions that occur, and that might help to bridge some differences between the communities. Although I consider myself more technical in the context of Internet governance discussions, I do have roots in development activities that are quite consistent with some of the expressions of opinion posted to this and similar lists. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Nov 18, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi Sala, a matter of clarification please. Are you suggesting that George be a point of liaison within the technical community for civil society, or that George be a civil society representative liaising with the technical community? I am all in favour of the former, and admire George's work, but I doubt whether George would be entirely comfortable with the latter role and even if he was I doubt that would be acceptable to many on this list. Ian Peter From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:20 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: George Sadowsky Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons Dear IGC, As you can imagine, since Bali and in light of the "multistakeholder" event that will be hosted by the Brazil on the future on Internet Governance called: "Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future on Internet Governance," it becomes inherently critical that we start preparing to shape the Agenda. Many thanks to Carlos and Hartmut for keeping us informed of what is happening within Brazil and for taking the time to translate from Portuguese to English when the need demands. Unfortunately, there were no live transcripts although transcripts will be provided unlike the live stream available to the GAC community (tongue in cheek). To watch the vide of Fadi speaking: http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157637762195684 ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadi spoke about the manner in which ICANN is going to engage in what I thought was a very mature response symbolic of the desire to engage with communities. As you can imagine in the lead up to the preparations for 2014 we as global civil society need to consolidate to prepare. There have been discussions going on offlist amongst the various facilitators of some of the core civil society groups about how this is to take place where it has centered on the possibilities of a joint framework for engagement of civil society including Multistakeholder selection processes for some of the key positions. There was suggestion to experiment first with the combined NomCom for the MAG and I highlighted that this could be difficult in light of the pressing deadlines. There may be room however for joint endorsements but I will leave this to the NomCom Chair. At this point, I do not want to burden our NomCom as they are working against a very narrow and tight deadline. Whilst we are waiting for the other groups to comment on coordinated and shared framework for engagement, I would like to propose the following to the IGC. Given that we do not have time nor the resources, it has been by way of an ad hoc nature common for people who are involved in foras or diverse communities to provide feedback on what is happening randomly. This to a large extent happens but my sense is that we need to be better coordinated and have different people watch the different spaces they are in and liaise back with the IGC. I suggested that this could be done with and through combined civil society but I think we need to pick up the pace and start anyway whilst waiting. To this extent, I would propose that in the spirit of enhanced cooperation that we use our own people within civil society who happen to wear multiple hats to act as liaisons, even if temporary at this point until such time where we can coordinate more permanent representation. I feel that the IGC should have liaisons in the following circles: . Technical Community . Business Community . Governments The liaisons role would be to be a bridge into these communities to channel developments of what is happening within these communities that are of relevance to civil society and also from time to time raise the issues of civil society or broker and facilitate the process through which these views can be heard. If there are people who feel they can function in these roles, we need volunteers. This is to ensure that we know what is happening at all times. The IGC has two options, we can utilize a formal process and invite calls for nominations and have a NomCom make the selection. On another note, we can maintain the informal ad hoc liaison process that is currently in place. My personal preference is for the latter to allow for volunteers who are consistent and command the respect of the diverse communities. Given the current deadlines and politics surrounding the 2014 Meeting in Brazil, I propose that we have George Sadowski to act as liaison for us to the technical community. I am of the view that we can have at least two to three liaisons as the Technical Community is diverse and spread out between the ETSI, W3C, ITU-T, IETF, ICANN, IAB, RIR etc. For now the liaison function can be limited to the developments of the Rio engagement with room to evolve into identifying issues affecting global public interest that civil society might want to monitor in a consistent and cohesive manner. Whilst George is also a member of the ICANN Board, I am not asking him as an ICANN Board member but as a member of the IGC. If there are those that wish to join George in this role, there is nothing stopping a list of volunteers from being part of a team that condenses the issues in diverse stratas and feeds it back into the IGC in a consolidated manner. As we engage in coming to the table to set the Agenda, we need to do so intelligently and cohesively and in a coordinated manner. This was one of the things raised in the meeting in Bali- In the future as the IGC evolves, there is space to develop a working group to focus on technical and policy stratas that we may wish to organize our advocacies in. For a long while, advocacy has been happening via individuals or groups that have pet topics and issues. Kind Regards, Sala (In my personal capacity) George Sadowski Profile and Biography GEORGE SADOWSKY: BIOGRAPHY George Sadowsky is currently a member of the Board of Directors of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and a consultant to, inter alia, the World Wide Web Foundation and NATO. He received an A.B. degree with honors in Mathematics from Harvard College and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Economics from Yale University. After spending 1958-1962 as an applied mathematician and programmer, his career concentrated on applying computers to economic and social policy, leading academic computing and networking organizations, and making information and communication technologies (ICTs) useful throughout the world. In 1963-64 he introduced the use of microsimulation for tax analysis purposes in the U.S. Treasury Department. During 1966-1970 he founded and directed the Computer Center at the Brookings Institution in Washington; from 1970-73 he did economic research at the Urban Institute leading to his Ph.D, dissertation on the subject of micro-analytic simulation of the household sector. During 1973-86 at the United Nations, he supported the transfer of information technology to developing countries. He has done work in more than 50 developing countries and continues to do so. Among other things, he introduced the use of microcomputers for census data processing in Africa in 1979, and he worked in China during 1982-1986 supporting the computing activities of their 1982 Census of Population and Housing. >From 1986 to 2001, he directed academic computing and networking activities, first at Northwestern University and then at New York University. He has been a consultant to the U.S. Treasury Department, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, UNDP, the Swiss Government, and a number of foundations. He was a Board member of AppliedTheory Corporation and was a Trustee of the Corporation for Research and Educational Networking (CREN) and the New York State Educational and Research Network (NYSERNet). He was actively involved in World Bank activities during 1996-2002 as a member and Coordinator of the Technical Advisory Panel for the infoDev program, as well as in UNDP and USAID activities. In 1994, he and Larry Landweber formulated USAID's Leland Initiative for providing initial Internet connectivity for 20 African countries. He was a member of the Internet Society Board of Trustees during 1996-1999 and 2000-2004 and served as Vice President for Conferences (1996-1998) and Vice- President for Education (1998-2001). He headed a group of ISOC volunteers who defined and conducted the ISOC Developing Country Network Training Workshops during 1993 -2001. More recently, he was the Executive Director of the Global Internet Policy Initiative (GIPI) from 2001-2006, which had active ongoing Internet policy reform projects in 17 countries. He also served as Senior Technical Adviser within USAID's dot-GOV program for the Internews Consortium, providing ICT policy assistance to the developing world. He has served as an expert witness for litigation in the United Kingdom and the United States. He was a special adviser to Nitin Desai, the Chair of the UN Secretary-General's Internet Governance Forum as well as to the Chair of UN G at ID. He has served as a member of the PIR (Public Internet Registry) Advisory Board, and he is currently a member of the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) Board of Directors He has written and lectured extensively on Please refer to his web site, http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ as well as the GIPI web site, http:// www.internetpolicy.net , for additional information. _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 23 12:00:20 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 12:00:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons In-Reply-To: <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Whether they would qualify as being members of the “Technical Community” > (TC) under what I understand to be the criteria for inclusion within the TC > as currently defined by the formal TC structures I’m not sure, as their > orientation tends to be towards technical design and fabrication in support > of social/digital inclusion and social justice.) > http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/ITCG%20Final.pdf -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Nov 23 11:34:30 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 17:34:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com> <0E149A89-BCB0-4F69-A0F5-F4571521B1BB@uzh.ch> <122601cee6ec$2fee2690$8fca73b0$@gmail.com> <558DFC58-A068-4BC4-88B6-D3DA58B30FD8@uzh.ch> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 23 12:52:24 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 23:37:24 +0545 Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 Zero Draft In-Reply-To: <1384851440.8653.YahooMailNeo@web28702.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <02f601cee16b$be3ea590$3abbf0b0$@gmail.com> <032a01cee16f$87808790$968196b0$@gmail.com> <1384851440.8653.YahooMailNeo@web28702.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <73AD50F5-11EC-46A2-8978-8C1BCC1E8395@consensus.pro> WSIS follow-up has been a top-down exercise, driven by the ITU wanting to be in charge of it. UN agencies shouldn’t be driving policy decisions - what we need is a bottom-up based process, where each country’s stakeholders decide how to implement WSIS in their way, and then compare notes under the CSTD processes, reviewing as we go along with the UN agencies just providing their input on their particular responsibilities. My hope is that a more bottom-up-based paradigm is what comes from the review. All the best from Kathmandu, Nick On 19 Nov 2013, at 14:42, CAFEC wrote: > Hello, > Thank you very much for this vital information. Besides, I'm not so surprised. To me and this is only my opinion, most systems of the United Nations has failed their responsibility in implementing the WSIS implementation by broad national and sub regional levels. More especially in most African countries, as is the case in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in many countries of Central Africa. > It would be therefore that studies should be organized in this way to understand the real causes of this failure. > > COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC > COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC > courriel:cafec3m at yahoo.fr/repronticrdc3m at yahoo.fr/b.schombe at gmail.com > téléphone: +243 998983491/+243813684512 > > > Le Jeudi 14 novembre 2013 21h39, michael gurstein a écrit : > My own particular involvement with Internet Governance issues began with the intertwining of the community informatics approach and the various discussions associated with the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS-Geneva and Tunis)… > As is its habit, the UN is now revisiting the Summit + 10 and is in the process of creating various types of documentation including importantly a review document on what has happened with respect to the original WSIS outcomes and where, as a global Summit, agreements should be entered into (at a meeting to be held in late 2014) to go on from here. > I’m attaching the current draft output document (apologies for the highlighting… > One significant difference between now and the original summits is that while the significance of the Internet has increased dramatically in the interim in all shapes and forms, the specific interest in the creation of an overall policy framework for the global deployment of the Internet has, in key areas (including most of those of interest from a community informatics perspective—the digital divide, digital inclusion, community empowerment through ICT use and so on) for the most part disappeared and particularly virtually all financial support for independent/CSresearch and representation and even programming in these areas.(for an interesting blogpost looking at this in my own country Canada seehttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/14/digital-divide-canada-poor_n_4269171.html?utm_hp_ref=canada > What this means is that whereas the Civil Society intervention in the WSIS process was active and effective (including in support of a broad community informatics approach) there is virtually no counterpart developments in relation to this revisiting. (You will recall a flurry of notes etc. that I posted here on this subject at the beginning of this year.) I haven’t yet had a chance to go through these documents in detail but a quick review suggests that, as I tried to say in my comments at the WSIS +10 meeting in February, it is not enough simply to review what has gone on before and to project it into the future it is also necessary to recognize where there has been failure and where past successes have led to new and significant issues which in turn need to be addressed.http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/making-happytalk-in-paris-disneyland-and-the-wsis-10-review/ > I’m not sure if anything much can be done on this at this stage but for those with an interest it is worth taking a look at these documents and for those with even more interest the overall process is described athttp://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/ > 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 23 12:57:07 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 09:57:07 -0800 Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <073401cee875$6d1edd40$475c97c0$@gmail.com> Thanks for this McTim and it looks like a significant first step to bringing some clarity to an important area and I congratulate those involved. M From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:00 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: George Sadowsky; Ian Peter; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Subject: Re: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, michael gurstein wrote: Whether they would qualify as being members of the "Technical Community" (TC) under what I understand to be the criteria for inclusion within the TC as currently defined by the formal TC structures I'm not sure, as their orientation tends to be towards technical design and fabrication in support of social/digital inclusion and social justice.) http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/ITCG%20Final.pdf -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Nov 23 13:07:14 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 13:07:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons In-Reply-To: <073401cee875$6d1edd40$475c97c0$@gmail.com> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <073401cee875$6d1edd40$475c97c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Here is the doc you should read in conjunction with the one linked below: http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/MagRenewalNomProcessFinal13.11.13.docx%20%281%29.pdf On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Thanks for this McTim and it looks like a significant first step to > bringing some clarity to an important area and I congratulate those > involved. > > > > M > > > > *From:* McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:00 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > *Cc:* George Sadowsky; Ian Peter; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and > need for IGC and civil society Liaisons > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > > > > > Whether they would qualify as being members of the “Technical Community” > (TC) under what I understand to be the criteria for inclusion within the TC > as currently defined by the formal TC structures I’m not sure, as their > orientation tends to be towards technical design and fabrication in support > of social/digital inclusion and social justice.) > > > > > > http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/ITCG%20Final.pdf > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 23 13:11:25 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 10:11:25 -0800 Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 Zero Draft In-Reply-To: <73AD50F5-11EC-46A2-8978-8C1BCC1E8395@consensus.pro> References: <02f601cee16b$be3ea590$3abbf0b0$@gmail.com> <032a01cee16f$87808790$968196b0$@gmail.com> <1384851440.8653.YahooMailNeo@web28702.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <73AD50F5-11EC-46A2-8978-8C1BCC1E8395@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <076501cee877$6d988f30$48c9ad90$@gmail.com> ++1 M From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:52 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; CAFEC Cc: michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] WSIS+10 Zero Draft WSIS follow-up has been a top-down exercise, driven by the ITU wanting to be in charge of it. UN agencies shouldn’t be driving policy decisions - what we need is a bottom-up based process, where each country’s stakeholders decide how to implement WSIS in their way, and then compare notes under the CSTD processes, reviewing as we go along with the UN agencies just providing their input on their particular responsibilities. My hope is that a more bottom-up-based paradigm is what comes from the review. All the best from Kathmandu, Nick On 19 Nov 2013, at 14:42, CAFEC wrote: Hello, Thank you very much for this vital information. Besides, I'm not so surprised. To me and this is only my opinion, most systems of the United Nations has failed their responsibility in implementing the WSIS implementation by broad national and sub regional levels. More especially in most African countries, as is the case in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in many countries of Central Africa. It would be therefore that studies should be organized in this way to understand the real causes of this failure. COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC courriel:cafec3m at yahoo.fr/repronticrdc3m at yahoo.fr/b.schombe at gmail.com téléphone: +243 998983491/+243813684512 Le Jeudi 14 novembre 2013 21h39, michael gurstein a écrit : My own particular involvement with Internet Governance issues began with the intertwining of the community informatics approach and the various discussions associated with the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS-Geneva and Tunis) As is its habit, the UN is now revisiting the Summit + 10 and is in the process of creating various types of documentation including importantly a review document on what has happened with respect to the original WSIS outcomes and where, as a global Summit, agreements should be entered into (at a meeting to be held in late 2014) to go on from here. I’m attaching the current draft output document (apologies for the highlighting One significant difference between now and the original summits is that while the significance of the Internet has increased dramatically in the interim in all shapes and forms, the specific interest in the creation of an overall policy framework for the global deployment of the Internet has, in key areas (including most of those of interest from a community informatics perspective—the digital divide, digital inclusion, community empowerment through ICT use and so on) for the most part disappeared and particularly virtually all financial support for independent/CSresearch and representation and even programming in these areas.(for an interesting blogpost looking at this in my own country Canada see http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/14/digital-divide-canada-poor_n_4269171 .html?utm_hp_ref=canada What this means is that whereas the Civil Society intervention in the WSIS process was active and effective (including in support of a broad community informatics approach) there is virtually no counterpart developments in relation to this revisiting. (You will recall a flurry of notes etc. that I posted here on this subject at the beginning of this year.) I haven’t yet had a chance to go through these documents in detail but a quick review suggests that, as I tried to say in my comments at the WSIS +10 meeting in February, it is not enough simply to review what has gone on before and to project it into the future it is also necessary to recognize where there has been failure and where past successes have led to new and significant issues which in turn need to be addressed. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/making-happytalk-in-paris-disneylan d-and-the-wsis-10-review/ I’m not sure if anything much can be done on this at this stage but for those with an interest it is worth taking a look at these documents and for those with even more interest the overall process is described at http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/ 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 Sat Nov 23 13:53:47 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 19:53:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <073401cee875$6d1edd40$475c97c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi People, Uncle George is highly diplomatic. I also give my endorsement in the proposed role Sala had put up. Best regard Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Nov 23, 2013 7:08 PM, "McTim" wrote: > Here is the doc you should read in conjunction with the one linked below: > > > http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/MagRenewalNomProcessFinal13.11.13.docx%20%281%29.pdf > > > On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> Thanks for this McTim and it looks like a significant first step to >> bringing some clarity to an important area and I congratulate those >> involved. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:00 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >> *Cc:* George Sadowsky; Ian Peter; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and >> need for IGC and civil society Liaisons >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Whether they would qualify as being members of the “Technical Community” >> (TC) under what I understand to be the criteria for inclusion within the TC >> as currently defined by the formal TC structures I’m not sure, as their >> orientation tends to be towards technical design and fabrication in support >> of social/digital inclusion and social justice.) >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/ITCG%20Final.pdf >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route >> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> > > > > -- > 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 23 16:58:05 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 03:28:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 Zero Draft In-Reply-To: <73AD50F5-11EC-46A2-8978-8C1BCC1E8395@consensus.pro> References: <02f601cee16b$be3ea590$3abbf0b0$@gmail.com> <032a01cee16f$87808790$968196b0$@gmail.com> <1384851440.8653.YahooMailNeo@web28702.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <73AD50F5-11EC-46A2-8978-8C1BCC1E8395@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <8CB3E402-EA03-45E5-ACA3-40AE021D8D74@hserus.net> Fully agreed. Civil society worldwide that was engaged with government and industry during wsis needs to revisit old contacts and old discussions to refresh memories and come up with ways forward in the next ten years, --srs (iPad) > On 23-Nov-2013, at 23:22, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > WSIS follow-up has been a top-down exercise, driven by the ITU wanting to be in charge of it. UN agencies shouldn’t be driving policy decisions - what we need is a bottom-up based process, where each country’s stakeholders decide how to implement WSIS in their way, and then compare notes under the CSTD processes, reviewing as we go along with the UN agencies just providing their input on their particular responsibilities. > > My hope is that a more bottom-up-based paradigm is what comes from the review. > > All the best from Kathmandu, Nick > >> On 19 Nov 2013, at 14:42, CAFEC wrote: >> >> Hello, >> Thank you very much for this vital information. Besides, I'm not so surprised. To me and this is only my opinion, most systems of the United Nations has failed their responsibility in implementing the WSIS implementation by broad national and sub regional levels. More especially in most African countries, as is the case in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in many countries of Central Africa. >> It would be therefore that studies should be organized in this way to understand the real causes of this failure. >> >> COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC >> COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC >> courriel:cafec3m at yahoo.fr/repronticrdc3m at yahoo.fr/b.schombe at gmail.com >> téléphone: +243 998983491/+243813684512 >> >> >> Le Jeudi 14 novembre 2013 21h39, michael gurstein a écrit : >> My own particular involvement with Internet Governance issues began with the intertwining of the community informatics approach and the various discussions associated with the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS-Geneva and Tunis)… >> As is its habit, the UN is now revisiting the Summit + 10 and is in the process of creating various types of documentation including importantly a review document on what has happened with respect to the original WSIS outcomes and where, as a global Summit, agreements should be entered into (at a meeting to be held in late 2014) to go on from here. >> I’m attaching the current draft output document (apologies for the highlighting… >> One significant difference between now and the original summits is that while the significance of the Internet has increased dramatically in the interim in all shapes and forms, the specific interest in the creation of an overall policy framework for the global deployment of the Internet has, in key areas (including most of those of interest from a community informatics perspective—the digital divide, digital inclusion, community empowerment through ICT use and so on) for the most part disappeared and particularly virtually all financial support for independent/CSresearch and representation and even programming in these areas.(for an interesting blogpost looking at this in my own country Canada seehttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/14/digital-divide-canada-poor_n_4269171.html?utm_hp_ref=canada >> What this means is that whereas the Civil Society intervention in the WSIS process was active and effective (including in support of a broad community informatics approach) there is virtually no counterpart developments in relation to this revisiting. (You will recall a flurry of notes etc. that I posted here on this subject at the beginning of this year.) I haven’t yet had a chance to go through these documents in detail but a quick review suggests that, as I tried to say in my comments at the WSIS +10 meeting in February, it is not enough simply to review what has gone on before and to project it into the future it is also necessary to recognize where there has been failure and where past successes have led to new and significant issues which in turn need to be addressed.http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/making-happytalk-in-paris-disneyland-and-the-wsis-10-review/ >> I’m not sure if anything much can be done on this at this stage but for those with an interest it is worth taking a look at these documents and for those with even more interest the overall process is described athttp://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/ >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Nov 23 19:59:17 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 01:59:17 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit References: <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk> <2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org> <-562132103237437841@unknownmsgid> <52901559.6050508@itforchange.net> <7511B518-ED0C-4738-98E3-96E77C013102@uzh.ch> <5290A642.4010302@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder: To the extent that we can all agree that there are indeed many issues that are not being dealt by current mechanisms, that is a good start for doing the real work of thinking about the needed mechanisms. Wolfgang: Can you specify which issue is NOT dealt by the IGF? And if all issues can be raised within the framework of the IGF, why not to make the IGF stronger? You were a proponent of better outpput in the UNCSTD IGF Improgeent WG! What is your comment to Jeremy´s and my proposal for an (IGF) Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council (MIPOC) as an addition to the MAG (which is just a program committteee)? w -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 23 21:43:21 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 03:43:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 Zero Draft In-Reply-To: <73AD50F5-11EC-46A2-8978-8C1BCC1E8395@consensus.pro> References: <02f601cee16b$be3ea590$3abbf0b0$@gmail.com> <032a01cee16f$87808790$968196b0$@gmail.com> <1384851440.8653.YahooMailNeo@web28702.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <73AD50F5-11EC-46A2-8978-8C1BCC1E8395@consensus.pro> Message-ID: I strongly differ. 1. Do political interest allow for Standards? 2. The Internet has Localized the Universal. If each Country drives its policy then how come the interface of some other rich and powerful on government engaged in misuse of power? 3. Whose interest is it that Africa is still kept in the dark and who are those partitioning Africa for the gains? 4. How many governments had ever thought of social security for the underdeveloped economy? All we need is a harmonized system to avoid transboundary crime. Lets use the Internet to address inequality and promote Universal peace. Let the UN system be restructured to fit in the new concepts and innovations. We are all in, the founders and developers of the Internet know well the powers behind the machine; that is driving Cultural,Economical and Social change across board at a speed unmatched in the evolution of mankind. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Nov 23, 2013 6:53 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" wrote: > WSIS follow-up has been a top-down exercise, driven by the ITU wanting to > be in charge of it. UN agencies shouldn’t be driving policy decisions - > what we need is a bottom-up based process, where each country’s > stakeholders decide how to implement WSIS in their way, and then compare > notes under the CSTD processes, reviewing as we go along with the UN > agencies just providing their input on their particular responsibilities. > > My hope is that a more bottom-up-based paradigm is what comes from the > review. > > All the best from Kathmandu, Nick > > On 19 Nov 2013, at 14:42, CAFEC wrote: > > Hello, > Thank you very much for this vital information. Besides, I'm not so > surprised. To me and this is only my opinion, most systems of the United > Nations has failed their responsibility in implementing the WSIS > implementation by broad national and sub regional levels. More especially > in most African countries, as is the case in the Democratic Republic of > Congo and in many countries of Central Africa. > It would be therefore that studies should be organized in this way to > understand the real causes of this failure. > > > *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* > courriel:cafec3m at yahoo.fr/repronticrdc3m at yahoo.fr/b.schombe at gmail.com > téléphone: +243 998983491/+243813684512 > > > Le Jeudi 14 novembre 2013 21h39, michael gurstein a > écrit : > My own particular involvement with Internet Governance issues began with > the intertwining of the community informatics approach and the various > discussions associated with the World Summit on the Information Society > (WSIS-Geneva and Tunis)… > As is its habit, the UN is now revisiting the Summit + 10 and is in the > process of creating various types of documentation including importantly a > review document on what has happened with respect to the original WSIS > outcomes and where, as a global Summit, agreements should be entered into > (at a meeting to be held in late 2014) to go on from here. > I’m attaching the current draft output document (apologies for the > highlighting… > One significant difference between now and the original summits is that > while the significance of the Internet has increased dramatically in the > interim in all shapes and forms, the specific interest in the creation of > an overall policy framework for the global deployment of the Internet has, > in key areas (including most of those of interest from a community > informatics perspective—the digital divide, digital inclusion, community > empowerment through ICT use and so on) for the most part disappeared and > particularly virtually all financial support for independent/CSresearch > and representation and even programming in these areas.(for an > interesting blogpost looking at this in my own country Canada see > http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/14/digital-divide-canada-poor_n_4269171.html?utm_hp_ref=canada > What this means is that whereas the Civil Society intervention in the WSIS > process was active and effective (including in support of a broad > community informatics approach) there is virtually no counterpart > developments in relation to this revisiting. (You will recall a flurry of > notes etc. that I posted here on this subject at the beginning of this > year.) I haven’t yet had a chance to go through these documents in > detail but a quick review suggests that, as I tried to say in my comments > at the WSIS +10 meeting in February, it is not enough simply to review what > has gone on before and to project it into the future it is also necessary > to recognize where there has been failure and where past successes have led > to new and significant issues which in turn need to be addressed. > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/making-happytalk-in-paris-disneyland-and-the-wsis-10-review/ > I’m not sure if anything much can be done on this at this stage but for > those with an interest it is worth taking a look at these documents and for > those with even more interest the overall process is described at > http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/ > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 23 21:46:46 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 03:46:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance challenges In-Reply-To: References: <0b8c01cee621$2c158480$84408d80$@gmail.com> <0e3f01cee67a$8f048600$ad0d9200$@gmail.com> <0E149A89-BCB0-4F69-A0F5-F4571521B1BB@uzh.ch> <122601cee6ec$2fee2690$8fca73b0$@gmail.com> <558DFC58-A068-4BC4-88B6-D3DA58B30FD8@uzh.ch> Message-ID: ++++ to JFC notes. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Nov 23, 2013 6:16 PM, "JFC Morfin" wrote: > *At 20:47 22/11/2013, Marilia Maciel wrote:* > As far as I could notice in my first ICANN meeting, there is still no > clear understanding that ICANN serves the public good. This line is > becoming more prominent in speeches, but the assimilation and the > interpretation of what this "public responsibility" entails varies a lot > across the organization. I can't remember hearing words like "development" > and "human rights". Competition seems to be used in place of development, > as if one thing would necessarily entail the other. And competition should > be achieved by market forces, not through policy (ex: making the > application for new gTLDs less expensive for developing country applicants > was not approved some time ago). > > > Maria, > > Your feeling is correct. The reason why we have so many disputes over > competition vs. development vs. neutrality vs. human rights vs. etc. vs. > etc. is simple enough to understand. It is historic. > > From experience and research we call it "the BUG": it is the mental, > political, technical, etc. “*B*an of every *U*se that reaches a *G*lobal > scale”, because it cannot be further controlled. > > Please understand that the people who have initially designed, used, and > managed the internet never intended to build a network for the world. They > were US academics and engineers who enlarged themselves further on to > business users with progressively no external financing. They applied Louis > Pouzin's "catenet" concept introduced by Vint Cerf as the interneting of > their systems using Vint's and Bob Kahn's TCP/IP: the network of networks. > > They connected to the international public network in 1984 with one > objective: keep budget control. This was Jon Postel’s job, the "Internet > Tsar": to finance, not otherwise voluntarily assumed, common functions > quickly enough through domain names. ICANN was created by Jon Postel and it > has continued to his job: auto-financing the IANA. Vint Cerf's ISOC has the > burden of financing and supporting (relieving Bob Kahn) the IETF, etc. > > Technically, the task was practical end to end data transportation and > running code, not the constraints established by Governments in order > (through the ISO technology) to respect the (technically costly, > constraining, uncontrollable) general values that you miss. This was > technically quicker, "dirtier", cheaper, and unsecure (hence acceptable to > most). In the deregulation and pre-WTO Kennedy round context it was backed > by political and military US consensus. Once the then prevailing > every-use-oriented non-controllable technology (Tymnet) acquired and > stopped by a member of the US industrial establishment (McDD), the > competition resolved to US computers+Internet and non-US OSI switchers. > Industry bucks won over the Public good. Gone are the people’s networks of > the network of networks project: the robust BUG prevailed. > > Today, the whole thing is confronted with reality. Those who pay (Gov, > professional use, CS) want neutral, secure, versatile, efficient, > resilient, innovative, fair, sustainable, etc. and most of all foreseeable > (the investments are heavy and unclear, e.g. IPv6) quality. The I* > establishment *does not know* how to do it. > > This is why we should thank those who (ISOC), for several years, have > gathered its leaders for them to think together. They achieved at least > three major things: > > (1) to spell out their motivations [this is RFC 6852]. One may disagree > with it, but it is clear and workable, except on one point that I object > to: it has to be made reliable. > (2) the publicly united Montevideo statement that discloses (with Lynn's > letter to the AC) their MS common and open (1NET) approach to answer this > objection by MSism. > (3) that the US, being attacked by Brazil, have accepted to openly > discuss the matter with everyone (including the Telcos) and ease the > climate after the WCIT. > > This DOES NOT address your objections. This does not address mine either, > about the architectonic flaws of their position. > > HOWEVER, this is a clear position. It does permit us to discuss and build > with them in very practical technical, political, and economic terms. > > Now, if we want to be productive, all of us have to get real. Getting real > means, among other things, > > · for us to accept the particular role of the US in the world > economy and peace, the contribution and demands of each civilization, the > common need to re-understand sovereignty and citizenship, the duties of > every Government, the business reality, the difference between a 1 and a 10 > billion people+N-billion bots society, the impact of the so-called > "singularity", etc. and most of all that communications are not host to > host, but among persons. > > · For the US, multilateral institutions and Governments, it is also > to evaluate the pros and cons of globalism vs. glocalism (to respect > localism – down to the people – within a global context). > > · For all, it means to understand what “wholization” is, i.e. the > synergy of organizing the whole thing together, and how to use/redistribute > the resulting bonus. > > The target is to address the BUG, i.e. to replace a unicity of control by > a diversified unity, what is *not* balkanization but rather burgeoning, > in freeing innovation in the use field along universal human digital rights > (i.e. the specific embodiment of HRs in the digital context). > > I just want to add that having seen the spring of the BUG, I feel that it > only results from a generational culture of the network use management > (what one also call governance or intergovernance): correcting it could not > call for the change of a single bit of code (the technology is robust). It > “only” demands a brainware evolution and reshaping some structures. > Whatever the hows: we have engaged it. > > Let’s not dispute. Let’s cooperate. > > jfc > > I don't think that arguments such as "the responsibility to support the > weakest link" would mean much in a high policy dialogue inside ICANN. On > the best case, my feeling is that it would translate into support for the > attendance of some constituency members or more fellowships. It does not > mean, however, that we should demonize the space or stay away from it. It > was created with this DNA for historical and political reasons. It is up to > people who believe that the idea of the "public good" and "development" and > "rights" should be reinforced to be there and shape it. The much necessary > internationalization would not translate into significant changes on the > operational level, unless these different views are strengthened from > within. > > Marília > > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:03 PM, William Drake > wrote: Hi Michael On Nov 21, 2013, at 4:02 PM, michael gurstein < > gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the endorsement Bill, but you left out what I consider to be > a crucial element which is that that support should not be done simply by > attempting to incorporate/co-opt civil society within ICANN (as seems to be > the current direction) but rather to provide a means for the independent > support of an independent, broadly based and inclusive Civil Society—not an > easy task to accomplish but not I think, impossible. > > I have no idea on what basis you are characterizing “the current > direction” in that manner. What conversations with whom have you had that > gives you this special insight about “co-optation” being underway? All I > have heard, which was responsive to your prior comment so I replied, is > that ICANN recognizes that CS needs to be fully included in the effort. > > A useful example with some (but not total) relevance is the support > that OSI provided for CSISAC at the OECD, which among other things, > > So you’re talking about money? I’ve not heard discussions of money, just > of ensuring the platform is open to all in terms of participation and > inputs. > > allowed for the hiring of a (part-time) CS coordinator and some > (limited) funds for selected/expert CS participation in various OECD > substantive activities/events. BTW one of the reasons that this worked to > the degree that it did was that the funding went (indirectly) to CSISAC and > the co-ordinator reported to the Steering Committee rather than for > example, the funding being given to one or another of the organizational > members of CSISAC who then had the responsibility for (opportunity to) pick > and choose re: how the funds were spent (which inevitably leads to > suspicion and bad feeling). Of course, the OECD is quite a different > space from the IG one but various groupings within CS including notably a > lot of the current parties in the IG CS space have managed to cooperate and > accomplish quite a great deal as a result, in large part, of the (quite > modest) financial support provided by OSI. > > Yes, it’s a different space. But at this point we’re still talking about > much more basic things, like what the framework for participation in > planning arrangements will be, how people will provide inputs, etc. The > Brazilians will have more to say after their meeting Monday. Best, Bill > > M, From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:38 AM To: Governance; michael > gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: [governance] > Networkworld: ICANN Sets Up A Coalition to address new Internet governance > challenges On Nov 21, 2013, at 2:27 AM, michael gurstein < > gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: > Many are uneasy with this but if ICANN wishes to occupy that role (and > given their privileged financial position as gatekeeper/rent extractor they > are in a position to present themselves for this) then they have an > interest in/responsibility for supporting the weakest link in that > multi-stakeholder Internet ecology i.e. Civil Society. I can endorse > the second lat of the sentence, and we have communicated this to Fadi and > senior staff in some detail. They say they get it. 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 > > > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 23 21:48:04 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 08:18:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 Zero Draft Message-ID: As for Africa you may want to look at how many governments have forced monopolies of telecom and the impact that has. Compare Kenya and South Africa to some other countries with a less liberalized market. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Sonigitu Ekpe" To: "Nick Ashton-Hart" , Cc: "michael gurstein" , "CAFEC" Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 Zero Draft Date: Sun, Nov 24, 2013 8:13 AM I strongly differ. 1. Do political interest allow for Standards? 2. The Internet has Localized the Universal. If each Country drives its policy then how come the interface of some other rich and powerful on government engaged in misuse of power? 3. Whose interest is it that Africa is still kept in the dark and who are those partitioning Africa for the gains? 4. How many governments had ever thought of social security for the underdeveloped economy? All we need is a harmonized system to avoid transboundary crime. Lets use the Internet to address inequality and promote Universal peace. Let the UN system be restructured to fit in the new concepts and innovations. We are all in, the founders and developers of the Internet know well the powers behind the machine; that is driving Cultural,Economical and Social change across board at a speed unmatched in the evolution of mankind. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Nov 23, 2013 6:53 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" wrote: > WSIS follow-up has been a top-down exercise, driven by the ITU wanting to > be in charge of it. UN agencies shouldn’t be driving policy decisions - > what we need is a bottom-up based process, where each country’s > stakeholders decide how to implement WSIS in their way, and then compare > notes under the CSTD processes, reviewing as we go along with the UN > agencies just providing their input on their particular responsibilities. > > My hope is that a more bottom-up-based paradigm is what comes from the > review. > > All the best from Kathmandu, Nick > > On 19 Nov 2013, at 14:42, CAFEC wrote: > > Hello, > Thank you very much for this vital information. Besides, I'm not so > surprised. To me and this is only my opinion, most systems of the United > Nations has failed their responsibility in implementing the WSIS > implementation by broad national and sub regional levels. More especially > in most African countries, as is the case in the Democratic Republic of > Congo and in many countries of Central Africa. > It would be therefore that studies should be organized in this way to > understand the real causes of this failure. > > > *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* > courriel:cafec3m at yahoo.fr/repronticrdc3m at yahoo.fr/b.schombe at gmail.com > téléphone: +243 998983491/+243813684512 > > > Le Jeudi 14 novembre 2013 21h39, michael gurstein a > écrit : > My own particular involvement with Internet Governance issues began with > the intertwining of the community informatics approach and the various > discussions associated with the World Summit on the Information Society > (WSIS-Geneva and Tunis)… > As is its habit, the UN is now revisiting the Summit + 10 and is in the > process of creating various types of documentation including importantly a > review document on what has happened with respect to the original WSIS > outcomes and where, as a global Summit, agreements should be entered into > (at a meeting to be held in late 2014) to go on from here. > I’m attaching the current draft output document (apologies for the > highlighting… > One significant difference between now and the original summits is that > while the significance of the Internet has increased dramatically in the > interim in all shapes and forms, the specific interest in the creation of > an overall policy framework for the global deployment of the Internet has, > in key areas (including most of those of interest from a community > informatics perspective—the digital divide, digital inclusion, community > empowerment through ICT use and so on) for the most part disappeared and > particularly virtually all financial support for independent/CSresearch > and representation and even programming in these areas.(for an > interesting blogpost looking at this in my own country Canada see > http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/14/digital-divide-canada-poor_n_4269171.html?utm_hp_ref=canada > What this means is that whereas the Civil Society intervention in the WSIS > process was active and effective (including in support of a broad > community informatics approach) there is virtually no counterpart > developments in relation to this revisiting. (You will recall a flurry of > notes etc. that I posted here on this subject at the beginning of this > year.) I haven’t yet had a chance to go through these documents in > detail but a quick review suggests that, as I tried to say in my comments > at the WSIS +10 meeting in February, it is not enough simply to review what > has gone on before and to project it into the future it is also necessary > to recognize where there has been failure and where past successes have led > to new and significant issues which in turn need to be addressed. > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/making-happytalk-in-paris-disneyland-and-the-wsis-10-review/ > I’m not sure if anything much can be done on this at this stage but for > those with an interest it is worth taking a look at these documents and for > those with even more interest the overall process is described at > http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/ > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 23 22:10:24 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 04:10:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 Zero Draft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Suresh. Who are the players behind Kenya and South Africa governments after the wrongs.............today pretending to allow the tricks from the back door? Why not we all come through the front door without masks? Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Nov 24, 2013 3:48 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > As for Africa you may want to look at how many governments have forced > monopolies of telecom and the impact that has. Compare Kenya and South > Africa to some other countries with a less liberalized market. > > --srs (htc one x) > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Sonigitu Ekpe" > To: "Nick Ashton-Hart" , < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > Cc: "michael gurstein" , "CAFEC" > Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 Zero Draft > Date: Sun, Nov 24, 2013 8:13 AM > > I strongly differ. > 1. Do political interest allow for Standards? > 2. The Internet has Localized the Universal. If each Country drives its > policy then how come the interface of some other rich and powerful on > government engaged in misuse of power? > 3. Whose interest is it that Africa is still kept in the dark and who are > those partitioning Africa for the gains? > 4. How many governments had ever thought of social security for the > underdeveloped economy? > > All we need is a harmonized system to avoid transboundary crime. Lets use > the Internet to address inequality and promote Universal peace. Let the UN > system be restructured to fit in the new concepts and innovations. > > We are all in, the founders and developers of the Internet know well the > powers behind the machine; that is driving Cultural,Economical and Social > change across board at a speed unmatched in the evolution of mankind. > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > On Nov 23, 2013 6:53 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" wrote: > > > WSIS follow-up has been a top-down exercise, driven by the ITU wanting to > > be in charge of it. UN agencies shouldn’t be driving policy decisions - > > what we need is a bottom-up based process, where each country’s > > stakeholders decide how to implement WSIS in their way, and then compare > > notes under the CSTD processes, reviewing as we go along with the UN > > agencies just providing their input on their particular responsibilities. > > > > My hope is that a more bottom-up-based paradigm is what comes from the > > review. > > > > All the best from Kathmandu, Nick > > > > On 19 Nov 2013, at 14:42, CAFEC wrote: > > > > Hello, > > Thank you very much for this vital information. Besides, I'm not so > > surprised. To me and this is only my opinion, most systems of the United > > Nations has failed their responsibility in implementing the WSIS > > implementation by broad national and sub regional levels. More especially > > in most African countries, as is the case in the Democratic Republic of > > Congo and in many countries of Central Africa. > > It would be therefore that studies should be organized in this way to > > understand the real causes of this failure. > > > > > > *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* > > courriel:cafec3m at yahoo.fr/repronticrdc3m at yahoo.fr/b.schombe at gmail.com > > téléphone: +243 998983491/+243813684512 > > > > > > Le Jeudi 14 novembre 2013 21h39, michael gurstein a > > écrit : > > My own particular involvement with Internet Governance issues began with > > the intertwining of the community informatics approach and the various > > discussions associated with the World Summit on the Information Society > > (WSIS-Geneva and Tunis)… > > As is its habit, the UN is now revisiting the Summit + 10 and is in the > > process of creating various types of documentation including importantly a > > review document on what has happened with respect to the original WSIS > > outcomes and where, as a global Summit, agreements should be entered into > > (at a meeting to be held in late 2014) to go on from here. > > I’m attaching the current draft output document (apologies for the > > highlighting… > > One significant difference between now and the original summits is that > > while the significance of the Internet has increased dramatically in the > > interim in all shapes and forms, the specific interest in the creation of > > an overall policy framework for the global deployment of the Internet has, > > in key areas (including most of those of interest from a community > > informatics perspective—the digital divide, digital inclusion, community > > empowerment through ICT use and so on) for the most part disappeared and > > particularly virtually all financial support for independent/CSresearch > > and representation and even programming in these areas.(for an > > interesting blogpost looking at this in my own country Canada see > > http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/14/digital-divide-canada-poor_n_4269171.html?utm_hp_ref=canada > > What this means is that whereas the Civil Society intervention in the WSIS > > process was active and effective (including in support of a broad > > community informatics approach) there is virtually no counterpart > > developments in relation to this revisiting. (You will recall a flurry of > > notes etc. that I posted here on this subject at the beginning of this > > year.) I haven’t yet had a chance to go through these documents in > > detail but a quick review suggests that, as I tried to say in my comments > > at the WSIS +10 meeting in February, it is not enough simply to review what > > has gone on before and to project it into the future it is also necessary > > to recognize where there has been failure and where past successes have led > > to new and significant issues which in turn need to be addressed. > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/making-happytalk-in-paris-disneyland-and-the-wsis-10-review/ > > I’m not sure if anything much can be done on this at this stage but for > > those with an interest it is worth taking a look at these documents and for > > those with even more interest the overall process is described at > > http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/ > > 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 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 23 22:19:30 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 08:49:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 Zero Draft Message-ID: You are looking at a liberalized economy and a healthy competition in the internet provider market. If you choose to see a deep plot behind that, I guess it is the same plot around the world, called market forces. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Sonigitu Ekpe" To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Cc: "Michael Gurstein" , "Nick Ashton-Hart" , "CAFEC" , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 Zero Draft Date: Sun, Nov 24, 2013 8:40 AM Thank you Suresh. Who are the players behind Kenya and South Africa governments after the wrongs.............today pretending to allow the tricks from the back door? Why not we all come through the front door without masks? Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Nov 24, 2013 3:48 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > As for Africa you may want to look at how many governments have forced > monopolies of telecom and the impact that has. Compare Kenya and South > Africa to some other countries with a less liberalized market. > > --srs (htc one x) > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Sonigitu Ekpe" > To: "Nick Ashton-Hart" , < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > Cc: "michael gurstein" , "CAFEC" > Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 Zero Draft > Date: Sun, Nov 24, 2013 8:13 AM > > I strongly differ. > 1. Do political interest allow for Standards? > 2. The Internet has Localized the Universal. If each Country drives its > policy then how come the interface of some other rich and powerful on > government engaged in misuse of power? > 3. Whose interest is it that Africa is still kept in the dark and who are > those partitioning Africa for the gains? > 4. How many governments had ever thought of social security for the > underdeveloped economy? > > All we need is a harmonized system to avoid transboundary crime. Lets use > the Internet to address inequality and promote Universal peace. Let the UN > system be restructured to fit in the new concepts and innovations. > > We are all in, the founders and developers of the Internet know well the > powers behind the machine; that is driving Cultural,Economical and Social > change across board at a speed unmatched in the evolution of mankind. > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > On Nov 23, 2013 6:53 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" wrote: > > > WSIS follow-up has been a top-down exercise, driven by the ITU wanting to > > be in charge of it. UN agencies shouldn’t be driving policy decisions - > > what we need is a bottom-up based process, where each country’s > > stakeholders decide how to implement WSIS in their way, and then compare > > notes under the CSTD processes, reviewing as we go along with the UN > > agencies just providing their input on their particular responsibilities. > > > > My hope is that a more bottom-up-based paradigm is what comes from the > > review. > > > > All the best from Kathmandu, Nick > > > > On 19 Nov 2013, at 14:42, CAFEC wrote: > > > > Hello, > > Thank you very much for this vital information. Besides, I'm not so > > surprised. To me and this is only my opinion, most systems of the United > > Nations has failed their responsibility in implementing the WSIS > > implementation by broad national and sub regional levels. More especially > > in most African countries, as is the case in the Democratic Republic of > > Congo and in many countries of Central Africa. > > It would be therefore that studies should be organized in this way to > > understand the real causes of this failure. > > > > > > *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* > > courriel:cafec3m at yahoo.fr/repronticrdc3m at yahoo.fr/b.schombe at gmail.com > > téléphone: +243 998983491/+243813684512 > > > > > > Le Jeudi 14 novembre 2013 21h39, michael gurstein a > > écrit : > > My own particular involvement with Internet Governance issues began with > > the intertwining of the community informatics approach and the various > > discussions associated with the World Summit on the Information Society > > (WSIS-Geneva and Tunis)… > > As is its habit, the UN is now revisiting the Summit + 10 and is in the > > process of creating various types of documentation including importantly a > > review document on what has happened with respect to the original WSIS > > outcomes and where, as a global Summit, agreements should be entered into > > (at a meeting to be held in late 2014) to go on from here. > > I’m attaching the current draft output document (apologies for the > > highlighting… > > One significant difference between now and the original summits is that > > while the significance of the Internet has increased dramatically in the > > interim in all shapes and forms, the specific interest in the creation of > > an overall policy framework for the global deployment of the Internet has, > > in key areas (including most of those of interest from a community > > informatics perspective—the digital divide, digital inclusion, community > > empowerment through ICT use and so on) for the most part disappeared and > > particularly virtually all financial support for independent/CSresearch > > and representation and even programming in these areas.(for an > > interesting blogpost looking at this in my own country Canada see > > http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/14/digital-divide-canada-poor_n_4269171.html?utm_hp_ref=canada > > What this means is that whereas the Civil Society intervention in the WSIS > > process was active and effective (including in support of a broad > > community informatics approach) there is virtually no counterpart > > developments in relation to this revisiting. (You will recall a flurry of > > notes etc. that I posted here on this subject at the beginning of this > > year.) I haven’t yet had a chance to go through these documents in > > detail but a quick review suggests that, as I tried to say in my comments > > at the WSIS +10 meeting in February, it is not enough simply to review what > > has gone on before and to project it into the future it is also necessary > > to recognize where there has been failure and where past successes have led > > to new and significant issues which in turn need to be addressed. > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/making-happytalk-in-paris-disneyland-and-the-wsis-10-review/ > > I’m not sure if anything much can be done on this at this stage but for > > those with an interest it is worth taking a look at these documents and for > > those with even more interest the overall process is described at > > http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/ > > 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 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Nov 24 01:20:20 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:20:20 +1100 Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons In-Reply-To: <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the clarification George and Sala. I have no problem at all with a good non-exclusive line of contact (such as yourself) to the proclaimed representatives of the technical community. Ian From: George Sadowsky Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 3:03 AM To: Ian Peter Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons Hi, Ian, Sala and I talked while we were both in Buenos Aires. Perhaps I can clarify my sense of what she may have been proposing. There is at the moment somewhat of a gulf between the technical community and the list(s) used by the proclaimed representatives of civil society. Sometimes such differences of opinion, as well as fact, can be resoled rather quickly if they are discussed directly by people on both sides of the issue, rather than being left to fester and feed growing suspicion and/or discontent. I think that Sala thought that having some announced or implied line of communication, clearly non-exclusive, might be helpful at times. I thought so, too. Having seen little response from anyone on this list, perhaps the idea isn't welcome in the more formalized sense in which it has been presented, and I can understand that. I think that perhaps I could be more active from time to time in the discussions that occur, and that might help to bridge some differences between the communities. Although I consider myself more technical in the context of Internet governance discussions, I do have roots in development activities that are quite consistent with some of the expressions of opinion posted to this and similar lists. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Nov 18, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi Sala, a matter of clarification please. Are you suggesting that George be a point of liaison within the technical community for civil society, or that George be a civil society representative liaising with the technical community? I am all in favour of the former, and admire George’s work, but I doubt whether George would be entirely comfortable with the latter role and even if he was I doubt that would be acceptable to many on this list. Ian Peter From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:20 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: George Sadowsky Subject: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons Dear IGC, As you can imagine, since Bali and in light of the “multistakeholder” event that will be hosted by the Brazil on the future on Internet Governance called: "Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future on Internet Governance," it becomes inherently critical that we start preparing to shape the Agenda. Many thanks to Carlos and Hartmut for keeping us informed of what is happening within Brazil and for taking the time to translate from Portuguese to English when the need demands. Unfortunately, there were no live transcripts although transcripts will be provided unlike the live stream available to the GAC community (tongue in cheek). To watch the vide of Fadi speaking: http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157637762195684 ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadi spoke about the manner in which ICANN is going to engage in what I thought was a very mature response symbolic of the desire to engage with communities. As you can imagine in the lead up to the preparations for 2014 we as global civil society need to consolidate to prepare. There have been discussions going on offlist amongst the various facilitators of some of the core civil society groups about how this is to take place where it has centered on the possibilities of a joint framework for engagement of civil society including Multistakeholder selection processes for some of the key positions. There was suggestion to experiment first with the combined NomCom for the MAG and I highlighted that this could be difficult in light of the pressing deadlines. There may be room however for joint endorsements but I will leave this to the NomCom Chair. At this point, I do not want to burden our NomCom as they are working against a very narrow and tight deadline. Whilst we are waiting for the other groups to comment on coordinated and shared framework for engagement, I would like to propose the following to the IGC. Given that we do not have time nor the resources, it has been by way of an ad hoc nature common for people who are involved in foras or diverse communities to provide feedback on what is happening randomly. This to a large extent happens but my sense is that we need to be better coordinated and have different people watch the different spaces they are in and liaise back with the IGC. I suggested that this could be done with and through combined civil society but I think we need to pick up the pace and start anyway whilst waiting. To this extent, I would propose that in the spirit of enhanced cooperation that we use our own people within civil society who happen to wear multiple hats to act as liaisons, even if temporary at this point until such time where we can coordinate more permanent representation. I feel that the IGC should have liaisons in the following circles: · Technical Community · Business Community · Governments The liaisons role would be to be a bridge into these communities to channel developments of what is happening within these communities that are of relevance to civil society and also from time to time raise the issues of civil society or broker and facilitate the process through which these views can be heard. If there are people who feel they can function in these roles, we need volunteers. This is to ensure that we know what is happening at all times. The IGC has two options, we can utilize a formal process and invite calls for nominations and have a NomCom make the selection. On another note, we can maintain the informal ad hoc liaison process that is currently in place. My personal preference is for the latter to allow for volunteers who are consistent and command the respect of the diverse communities. Given the current deadlines and politics surrounding the 2014 Meeting in Brazil, I propose that we have George Sadowski to act as liaison for us to the technical community. I am of the view that we can have at least two to three liaisons as the Technical Community is diverse and spread out between the ETSI, W3C, ITU-T, IETF, ICANN, IAB, RIR etc. For now the liaison function can be limited to the developments of the Rio engagement with room to evolve into identifying issues affecting global public interest that civil society might want to monitor in a consistent and cohesive manner. Whilst George is also a member of the ICANN Board, I am not asking him as an ICANN Board member but as a member of the IGC. If there are those that wish to join George in this role, there is nothing stopping a list of volunteers from being part of a team that condenses the issues in diverse stratas and feeds it back into the IGC in a consolidated manner. As we engage in coming to the table to set the Agenda, we need to do so intelligently and cohesively and in a coordinated manner. This was one of the things raised in the meeting in Bali- In the future as the IGC evolves, there is space to develop a working group to focus on technical and policy stratas that we may wish to organize our advocacies in. For a long while, advocacy has been happening via individuals or groups that have pet topics and issues. Kind Regards, Sala (In my personal capacity) George Sadowski Profile and Biography GEORGE SADOWSKY: BIOGRAPHY George Sadowsky is currently a member of the Board of Directors of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and a consultant to, inter alia, the World Wide Web Foundation and NATO. He received an A.B. degree with honors in Mathematics from Harvard College and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Economics from Yale University. After spending 1958-1962 as an applied mathematician and programmer, his career concentrated on applying computers to economic and social policy, leading academic computing and networking organizations, and making information and communication technologies (ICTs) useful throughout the world. In 1963-64 he introduced the use of microsimulation for tax analysis purposes in the U.S. Treasury Department. During 1966-1970 he founded and directed the Computer Center at the Brookings Institution in Washington; from 1970-73 he did economic research at the Urban Institute leading to his Ph.D, dissertation on the subject of micro-analytic simulation of the household sector. During 1973-86 at the United Nations, he supported the transfer of information technology to developing countries. He has done work in more than 50 developing countries and continues to do so. Among other things, he introduced the use of microcomputers for census data processing in Africa in 1979, and he worked in China during 1982-1986 supporting the computing activities of their 1982 Census of Population and Housing. From 1986 to 2001, he directed academic computing and networking activities, first at Northwestern University and then at New York University. He has been a consultant to the U.S. Treasury Department, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, UNDP, the Swiss Government, and a number of foundations. He was a Board member of AppliedTheory Corporation and was a Trustee of the Corporation for Research and Educational Networking (CREN) and the New York State Educational and Research Network (NYSERNet). He was actively involved in World Bank activities during 1996-2002 as a member and Coordinator of the Technical Advisory Panel for the infoDev program, as well as in UNDP and USAID activities. In 1994, he and Larry Landweber formulated USAID's Leland Initiative for providing initial Internet connectivity for 20 African countries. He was a member of the Internet Society Board of Trustees during 1996-1999 and 2000-2004 and served as Vice President for Conferences (1996-1998) and Vice- President for Education (1998-2001). He headed a group of ISOC volunteers who defined and conducted the ISOC Developing Country Network Training Workshops during 1993 -2001. More recently, he was the Executive Director of the Global Internet Policy Initiative (GIPI) from 2001-2006, which had active ongoing Internet policy reform projects in 17 countries. He also served as Senior Technical Adviser within USAID's dot-GOV program for the Internews Consortium, providing ICT policy assistance to the developing world. He has served as an expert witness for litigation in the United Kingdom and the United States. He was a special adviser to Nitin Desai, the Chair of the UN Secretary-General's Internet Governance Forum as well as to the Chair of UN G at ID. He has served as a member of the PIR (Public Internet Registry) Advisory Board, and he is currently a member of the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) Board of Directors He has written and lectured extensively on Please refer to his web site, http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ as well as the GIPI web site, http:// www.internetpolicy.net, for additional information. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 24 07:42:56 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 18:12:56 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> ,<528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote: > I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add my 2 cents too! > > On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision. This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them. However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive merit of the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I only spoke about their procedural aspects - like inclusiveness, multistakeholder versus multilateral, etc . That these processes 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , than some of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP proposal. And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with this particular problem of global Internet governance. As for instance we are fond of regularly writing to ITU about its processes, and have even started to speak against proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model which was one of the most participatory of processes that I have ever seen. Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above problem of global governance - something which is a constant refrain in most discussions of global governance in the South . How can we simply dismiss this concern. Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to be this December). As they renew their mandate, I propose that we write to them, that 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and other regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have implications across the globe, to ensure global democracy. 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy frameworks on other countries - if they indeed think/ know that a particular Internet policy issue is of a global dimension they should from the start itself take it up at a global forum and accordingly develop policies regarding it . 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same principles of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for global Internet policy related bodies. In this regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, and whether they are same or different than what they seek at the global level, with justification thereof. 4. An OECD IGF should be set up and given the same policy role that OECD countries seek from the global IGF vis a vis global Internet policies. (Or they may want to manage with an expanded EuroDIG) and perhaps a few other points.... (I dont think CCICP meetings are open to observers - that we regularly seek from UN processes, that transcripts of CCICP proceedings are made public - as for instance that of UN WGEC are being made public and so on.......) I wont support it but those here who have asked for a decision making role for business and civil society in public policy making (or even an authoritative agenda-filtering/ vetoing role) should also separately write that the CSISAC and the Business advisory group should be assimilated into the CCICP to make a multistakeholder OECD's Internet Policy Committee (paralleling some proposal with regard to global level submitted to WGEC). Well, we may not agree on all of it, but are people here ready to take up this issue and begin framing a letter to the OECD? parminder PS: Dixie; There are some other important issues in your email below, which I will respond to separately. This is about what willy nilly come off as efforts to foreclose expression of some kind of views on this list (BestBits). It is really getting 'frustrating' (to use your term) to continually be subject to such emails about what is the 'correct' discourse on this list. The views that I express are all very important to us - the people I work with, and they cant be postponed, because in politics what you dont do can be as important as what you do. Neither it is appreciated to put labels of 'inappropriateness of the manner of their expression' on these views. We are all professionals here and know the terms of civil discourse. But some people seem to be forgetting civil society's role to ask hard question of itself and of others, and tolerate internal 'dissent'. > And I seem to recall many, many civil society speaking against them at the IGF in Nairobi. In fact, the IRP organised a workshop on copyright that year, one of the main agenda issues discussed was concerns with the OECP Internet Policy-Making Principles. > > On the CoE Cybersecurity convention too, I recall huge agreement among civil society that there were serious flaws in the convention, and it was wrong to push it on other countries (and wrong for CoE countries to fully adopt too). In fact, I' specifically remember hearing Anja argue this strongly on many panels. > > I think there is so much agreement among civil society on so many issues, but we never reach it because people come back continuously to the few areas where there are disagreement (or where people's opinions aren't fully formed and they aren't willing to concede until they are) and scratch at them on and on that prevents us from working on the areas where there is agreement. If we spent more time working on the areas where there is agreement, I honestly think that by the time we came to the more contentious areas we'd find them much narrower and easier to deal with, then we do by starting at those points. These conversations always seem to be framed as "we need to agree on the most contentious issues BEFORE we discuss anything else". > > For example, coming up with a proposal to put forward for the Brazil meeting - I think if we started trying to craft the language, the concerns with the current situation, the things we want to see, I think there would be huge amounts of agreement - strengthening IGF, internationalising ICANN, the values that should be ingrained in any governance mechanism. Then if at the end of that we came to some sort of roadblock (in very crude terms multi-stakeholder vs multi-lateral but I think those generic terms might sound far more apart than they are actually are among many civil society people), we could at that point decide to either submit different proposals, or come up with some slightly diplomatic fudge that most of us could sign on too, and as a result would have a lot of power. That's what happened with the WCIT statement. > > Anyways, I'm really frustrated to see the BB list go the same way as the IGC list just one month after we all agreed we didn't want that to happen. And I don't think anyone has caused it by the principles behind what they are saying, but rather by the way in which they say those things. Just to say, I thought the exact same about the debate about civil society funding. It's a completely valid point and I know that we at GPD are working on producing public reports of our funding streams. But it should not be started with: whoever gets funding from x funder is therefore invalid and should not be included in the debate. Again the conversation should start where there is agreement: i.e. "I think transparency and accountability among civil society is important, and one thing we should look at ways of being more transparent about is funding". > > Best, > Dixie > ________________________________________ > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: 21 November 2013 14:04 > To: Andrew Puddephatt > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC > > On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on this particular theme. > I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life to support the free expression of views. But I want BB to be a constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not spiral down as other networks have done. > > It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and you still are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you want to sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff of ' old views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man argument... > > No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to substantive points.... > > My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you. > > You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber crime convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do these things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels. > > Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies.... When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the number of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write one against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my question... One doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending them - it is enough that CS groups participate in these activties and endorse their outcomes (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively being promoted for global uptake - are we ready to write a statement against such an undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series are of the same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including your organisation participated in the process. But did we say that it is not right to not treat all countries at the same level..... It is these questions that would keep coming from the global South.... > > > When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human Rights Council > No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I cant see HRC being such a body.... > > – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment of human rights. > > The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global internet related policies.... > Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they are. I think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that recognised the legitimate interests of states, companies and users and I want that arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in its DNA. > I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with others in the next few months. My preference is for a dispersed arrangement in which different interests are balanced, but will likely comprise internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments, with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role. > > On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and CoE, there is no global body that can anchor norm building and facilitate treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies. > > But I’m looking forward to others’ views. > And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do not. > > That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder > > It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people. We all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak freely. > > > Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Executive Director > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > gp-digital.org > > From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38 > To: Andrew Puddephatt > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC > > Andrew > > I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do. > > Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue. > > my responses below... > On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel > > I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it.... > > > that straw men are being put up to be knocked down so I wanted to pick up on this and set out my own thoughts. > > > You think speaking about OECD and CoE's (council of europe) 'global' public policy activities is a straw man? Well. one of the most pointed interventions made by Carlos during the recent WGEC meeting was that developing countries resent global IG done through processes like the CoE's cybercrime treaty which was first negotiated among a few countries, and then sought to be exported to others.... Brazil took the floor to support Carlos' intervention. Later, India referred to OECD developing Principles for Internet Policy Making. You think they were all putting up strawmen? I am disappointed that such an important position of developing countries against developed country based "global' public policy making, especially in the IG space, is being dismissed in such a summary and disdainful manner. > > > > Firstly I’m not aware of anyone defending the OECD process of policy making as the model we should follow – maybe I missed that on the thread at some point – but it passed me by. People have been supportive of the changes it has made to become more multi-stakeholder ( rather than promoting it as the example of best practice) - certainly no-one I know who argues for a multi-stakeholder approach has positively supported the OECD’s approach – which in any case requires voluntary adoption of standards rather than produce anything binding. > > With the Council of Europe, this is a regional treaty body – not global – which was created in the wake of fascism in 1945 to promote human rights and democracy in Europe. It has a specific geographic focus and essentially sets out standards which it is for nation states to adopt – it does bind member states who have to consent to the norms. It sits alongside the African Union and the Inter-American Commission in this respect (both of which have developing countries in their membership). In the field of human rights protection, with the court in Strasbourg, it has proved very effective and its data protection provisions have also been helpful. Human rights is part of its DNA - but it is not a governance model for the internet and no one I know claims it to be. > > The concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to run the internet > > What kind of state based body to 'run the Internet' you allude to, and who proposed it.... BTW, do you think that OECD by making Internet policy principles 'runs the Internet', or US through its ICANN/IANA oversight role, and jurisprudence over the companies which are 70 percent of the Internet, 'runs the Internet'..... Or, is it that such loaded terms are to be used only for processes that may include poor, developing countries? (Accompanied by shutting up any counter-discourse by calling it various names as your email is full of...) > > > is not that it would give developing countries a voice – that’s a goal we all share – but because the example of bodies like the Human Rights Council, which has become a place where governments seek to prevent human rights standards from being enforced, rather than a place where positive policies are pursued. Of course the HRC has done good work – but it is a relentless diplomatic battle to hold the line. In the most recent elections Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba were all elected unopposed and I can tell you that very few people in the broad human rights movement are comforted by that. > > Yes that is a problem. However, no less is the problem of US's dominance and role in OECD, TPP, kind of global IG processes, for instance its insisting that net neutrality should be removed from OECD principles, and it pushing in overly strong IP protections and some clear pointers to private policing by ISPs in the same Principles document.... We cannot just keep using the 2-3 names of these above countries that you mention to discredit anything and everything that the UN or developing countries in general do or propose. Speaking of repeating old hackneyed arguments, as you do below, this one would any day take the cake in global IG space, > > > My feeling about Best Bits is that the majority of participants want to figure out – working collaboratively and constructively – how we can contribute to the development of an open internet that supports democracy and human rights. > > I have no doubt that this is what we and networks that we work with are most interested in.... Democracy btw does not admit vote or veto power for business reps in public policy making . And human rights go much beyond FoE and privacy and cover so many social, economic and cultural issues... > > > Most of us think that involving all stakeholders is crucial to that though we all recognise the difficulties inherent in such a process. I suggest that those of us who want to undertake this work get on with it and those who want something else get on with that. It’s a big world and there’s room for all opinions. > > IT for Change works closely on the ground to promote participatory democracy In India, I would not get into pressing that point too much here... BTW, since you may have missed it, just one thing - it is we who suggested adding 'Multi-stakeholder' (MS) term to the erstwhile Advisory Group of the IGF, it is we who worked with India on the famous "India proposal' during the meetings of WG on IGF improvements and actually were able to get almost all developing countries to agree to strengthening IGF (at least over the first year of WG IGF), whereas you may want to check more on what the so called MSists were doing then.... 'India proposal' and ITfC's proposal strongly pushed for recs giving power for the IGF, strengthening MAG to a much more substantial role, including working through WGs and so on..... You dont think that would amount to working on strengthening the multistakeholder approach.... > > Just because you have created a strawman of multilateralism versus MSism, are you suggesting that MLists, *as defined by you* should move elsewhere and this is a space for MSists to work..... > > > > I also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has been a way in which many new people have been able to enter the conversation about IG and internet policy issues but that there is a danger if the sterile nature of current discussions continues, they will driven away. (Several participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go the way of the IGC.) I think we have thoroughly aired the different views on multi-lateral v multi-stakeholder so can we move on and do the work we each want to do > > No, we havent... But if you think we are all clear about what is MSism and what is MLism (whereby, as you say, we should move on), may I ask you whether MSism includes business reps voting in making actual decisions about substantive public policy issues. A simple direct question, and if you are not clear about any element of it I can clarify... If your answer is yes, I am not a MSist, if it is no, I am as MSist as you or anyone else is. If you give me an answer to this question, I promise I'll move on -- depending on your answer with the MS brigade or the MList one... > > > > though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they want. > > Thanks, but your email really doesnt sound you are too happy that I put my side of what I think were and are important issues following the WGEC meeting, and also as we move forward. > > > I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I will be supporting something different to you. > > As per the above, I really do not know what do you mean by an inter-gov model.... If its identifying feature is that business reps will not be able to vote or veto with regard to substantive public policy issues, then yes I am proposing an inter-gov model (for me, all stakeholders should be an important part of all pre decision making processes, which for me is an MS approach)..... And since you say, you'd support 'something different', may I know whether in your model business will have vote/ veto power in terms of substantive public policy matters... > > > In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years or more. > > How many different ways you have used to tell me not to present my views :). It is really ingenious of you. > > parminder > > So I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the adage of Jon Postel – be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send > > Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Executive Director > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > gp-digital.org > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder > Sent: 19 November 2013 14:13 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC > > > On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Anja > > Thank you for this. > > I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change proposal. > > Could it be differences between ministries? > > No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document with the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also my understanding that this position was developed and approved by an inter ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of all the relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest level clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to rest... > > While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good people of the world seem to live and breathe..... > > Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is just proposing to have done by including all countries of the world that OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers, Information and Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with only the richest countries of the world being involved. Is there anything wrong with it? If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current 'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes global policy and if the differences are on this point, lets discuss it.) > > Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am completely unable to understand how people and organisations that rather enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet policy making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model whenever it is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been taken from the devil himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start getting thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations ever protested against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE, and the such) making Internet policies (for the whole world)? Especially when these rich country clubs dont even include all countries, excluding all those countries whose only fault is that they arent rich? That would be something for civil society to be protesting about.... > > Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told, no, in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil society reps do not participate in actual decision making. They will be told that business and civil society vote or veto on substantive decision making on public policy issues will never never be accepted. Just forget it (and go read your political science books) ! Civil society persons know this will be the response, and they dont want to stand there looking a bit sheepish! > > So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people put this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy' to developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for new institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic deficit in the governance to the Internet, which is today a major instrument of re-distributing all kinds of power? > > I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be given the answer to the above question - why these double standards between developed countries and the developing ones? Why does the meaning of multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model presented by India takes the demonic colors of multilateralism... Any takers? > > Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of global IG... > > > parminder > > > > > > I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications. > > Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are just a but left out of the loop. > > But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by multi-stakeholder IG. > > That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed solutions. > > Anriette > > > On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India made to the WGEC (see below this message and here: http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/ ) > > Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder models for Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government again tabled a proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be established under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP. > > Comments most welcome. > Best, > Anja > Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take over the governance of the Internet? > by Anja Kovacs > > Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation give the strong impression that this is indeed the case. > > In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC), which met for the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government recommended the following: > > The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. > > Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have been revived. > > Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose dominance needs to be established at the expense of other stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other stakeholders will only be given an advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially where the role of civil society is concerned - are outmoded is something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect its proposal. > > Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil society representative. The latter took with this a position quite radically different from other Indian members of civil society active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in this field, who believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way forward. > > Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there might at times be space for multilateralism within this multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new treaty, then from that point onwards, governments would take over as negotiating treaties is their job. > > However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of government dominance in the policy process, irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it also leaves the Internet policy making process much more vulnerable to the vagaries of global geopolitics. > > The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also for developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without their flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To think that principles that should govern the work of these bodies can be formulated or effectively applied without a central involvement of all stakeholders already involved in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be said, conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed. > > The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis Agenda. > > India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that would privilege governments in the making of international Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been established by the government precisely for such purposes in August of this year. > > For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and his own commitment to this model. > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 24 07:55:53 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 18:25:53 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC Message-ID: Can we have a show of hands on anybody at all other than our colleagues from it for change who endorse the cirp or think it is a good, even a workable idea? --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "parminder" To: "Dixie Hawtin" Cc: "Andrew Puddephatt" , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC Date: Sun, Nov 24, 2013 6:12 PM On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote: > I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add my 2 cents too! > > On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision. This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them. However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive merit of the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I only spoke about their procedural aspects - like inclusiveness, multistakeholder versus multilateral, etc . That these processes 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , than some of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP proposal. And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with this particular problem of global Internet governance. As for instance we are fond of regularly writing to ITU about its processes, and have even started to speak against proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model which was one of the most participatory of processes that I have ever seen. Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above problem of global governance - something which is a constant refrain in most discussions of global governance in the South . How can we simply dismiss this concern. Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to be this December). As they renew their mandate, I propose that we write to them, that 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and other regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have implications across the globe, to ensure global democracy. 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy frameworks on other countries - if they indeed think/ know that a particular Internet policy issue is of a global dimension they should from the start itself take it up at a global forum and accordingly develop policies regarding it . 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same principles of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for global Internet policy related bodies. In this regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, and whether they are same or different than what they seek at the global level, with justification thereof. 4. An OECD IGF should be set up and given the same policy role that OECD countries seek from the global IGF vis a vis global Internet policies. (Or they may want to manage with an expanded EuroDIG) and perhaps a few other points.... (I dont think CCICP meetings are open to observers - that we regularly seek from UN processes, that transcripts of CCICP proceedings are made public - as for instance that of UN WGEC are being made public and so on.......) I wont support it but those here who have asked for a decision making role for business and civil society in public policy making (or even an authoritative agenda-filtering/ vetoing role) should also separately write that the CSISAC and the Business advisory group should be assimilated into the CCICP to make a multistakeholder OECD's Internet Policy Committee (paralleling some proposal with regard to global level submitted to WGEC). Well, we may not agree on all of it, but are people here ready to take up this issue and begin framing a letter to the OECD? parminder PS: Dixie; There are some other important issues in your email below, which I will respond to separately. This is about what willy nilly come off as efforts to foreclose expression of some kind of views on this list (BestBits). It is really getting 'frustrating' (to use your term) to continually be subject to such emails about what is the 'correct' discourse on this list. The views that I express are all very important to us - the people I work with, and they cant be postponed, because in politics what you dont do can be as important as what you do. Neither it is appreciated to put labels of 'inappropriateness of the manner of their expression' on these views. We are all professionals here and know the terms of civil discourse. But some people seem to be forgetting civil society's role to ask hard question of itself and of others, and tolerate internal 'dissent'. > And I seem to recall many, many civil society speaking against them at the IGF in Nairobi. In fact, the IRP organised a workshop on copyright that year, one of the main agenda issues discussed was concerns with the OECP Internet Policy-Making Principles. > > On the CoE Cybersecurity convention too, I recall huge agreement among civil society that there were serious flaws in the convention, and it was wrong to push it on other countries (and wrong for CoE countries to fully adopt too). In fact, I' specifically remember hearing Anja argue this strongly on many panels. > > I think there is so much agreement among civil society on so many issues, but we never reach it because people come back continuously to the few areas where there are disagreement (or where people's opinions aren't fully formed and they aren't willing to concede until they are) and scratch at them on and on that prevents us from working on the areas where there is agreement. If we spent more time working on the areas where there is agreement, I honestly think that by the time we came to the more contentious areas we'd find them much narrower and easier to deal with, then we do by starting at those points. These conversations always seem to be framed as "we need to agree on the most contentious issues BEFORE we discuss anything else". > > For example, coming up with a proposal to put forward for the Brazil meeting - I think if we started trying to craft the language, the concerns with the current situation, the things we want to see, I think there would be huge amounts of agreement - strengthening IGF, internationalising ICANN, the values that should be ingrained in any governance mechanism. Then if at the end of that we came to some sort of roadblock (in very crude terms multi-stakeholder vs multi-lateral but I think those generic terms might sound far more apart than they are actually are among many civil society people), we could at that point decide to either submit different proposals, or come up with some slightly diplomatic fudge that most of us could sign on too, and as a result would have a lot of power. That's what happened with the WCIT statement. > > Anyways, I'm really frustrated to see the BB list go the same way as the IGC list just one month after we all agreed we didn't want that to happen. And I don't think anyone has caused it by the principles behind what they are saying, but rather by the way in which they say those things. Just to say, I thought the exact same about the debate about civil society funding. It's a completely valid point and I know that we at GPD are working on producing public reports of our funding streams. But it should not be started with: whoever gets funding from x funder is therefore invalid and should not be included in the debate. Again the conversation should start where there is agreement: i.e. "I think transparency and accountability among civil society is important, and one thing we should look at ways of being more transparent about is funding". > > Best, > Dixie > ________________________________________ > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: 21 November 2013 14:04 > To: Andrew Puddephatt > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC > > On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on this particular theme. > I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life to support the free expression of views. But I want BB to be a constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not spiral down as other networks have done. > > It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and you still are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you want to sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff of ' old views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man argument... > > No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to substantive points.... > > My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you. > > You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber crime convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do these things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels. > > Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies.... When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the number of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write one against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my question... One doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending them - it is enough that CS groups participate in these activties and endorse their outcomes (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively being promoted for global uptake - are we ready to write a statement against such an undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series are of the same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including your organisation participated in the process. But did we say that it is not right to not treat all countries at the same level..... It is these questions that would keep coming from the global South.... > > > When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human Rights Council > No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I cant see HRC being such a body.... > > – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment of human rights. > > The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global internet related policies.... > Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they are. I think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that recognised the legitimate interests of states, companies and users and I want that arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in its DNA. > I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with others in the next few months. My preference is for a dispersed arrangement in which different interests are balanced, but will likely comprise internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments, with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role. > > On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and CoE, there is no global body that can anchor norm building and facilitate treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies. > > But I’m looking forward to others’ views. > And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do not. > > That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder > > It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people. We all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak freely. > > > Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Executive Director > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > gp-digital.org > > From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38 > To: Andrew Puddephatt > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC > > Andrew > > I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do. > > Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue. > > my responses below... > On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel > > I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it.... > > > that straw men are being put up to be knocked down so I wanted to pick up on this and set out my own thoughts. > > > You think speaking about OECD and CoE's (council of europe) 'global' public policy activities is a straw man? Well. one of the most pointed interventions made by Carlos during the recent WGEC meeting was that developing countries resent global IG done through processes like the CoE's cybercrime treaty which was first negotiated among a few countries, and then sought to be exported to others.... Brazil took the floor to support Carlos' intervention. Later, India referred to OECD developing Principles for Internet Policy Making. You think they were all putting up strawmen? I am disappointed that such an important position of developing countries against developed country based "global' public policy making, especially in the IG space, is being dismissed in such a summary and disdainful manner. > > > > Firstly I’m not aware of anyone defending the OECD process of policy making as the model we should follow – maybe I missed that on the thread at some point – but it passed me by. People have been supportive of the changes it has made to become more multi-stakeholder ( rather than promoting it as the example of best practice) - certainly no-one I know who argues for a multi-stakeholder approach has positively supported the OECD’s approach – which in any case requires voluntary adoption of standards rather than produce anything binding. > > With the Council of Europe, this is a regional treaty body – not global – which was created in the wake of fascism in 1945 to promote human rights and democracy in Europe. It has a specific geographic focus and essentially sets out standards which it is for nation states to adopt – it does bind member states who have to consent to the norms. It sits alongside the African Union and the Inter-American Commission in this respect (both of which have developing countries in their membership). In the field of human rights protection, with the court in Strasbourg, it has proved very effective and its data protection provisions have also been helpful. Human rights is part of its DNA - but it is not a governance model for the internet and no one I know claims it to be. > > The concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to run the internet > > What kind of state based body to 'run the Internet' you allude to, and who proposed it.... BTW, do you think that OECD by making Internet policy principles 'runs the Internet', or US through its ICANN/IANA oversight role, and jurisprudence over the companies which are 70 percent of the Internet, 'runs the Internet'..... Or, is it that such loaded terms are to be used only for processes that may include poor, developing countries? (Accompanied by shutting up any counter-discourse by calling it various names as your email is full of...) > > > is not that it would give developing countries a voice – that’s a goal we all share – but because the example of bodies like the Human Rights Council, which has become a place where governments seek to prevent human rights standards from being enforced, rather than a place where positive policies are pursued. Of course the HRC has done good work – but it is a relentless diplomatic battle to hold the line. In the most recent elections Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba were all elected unopposed and I can tell you that very few people in the broad human rights movement are comforted by that. > > Yes that is a problem. However, no less is the problem of US's dominance and role in OECD, TPP, kind of global IG processes, for instance its insisting that net neutrality should be removed from OECD principles, and it pushing in overly strong IP protections and some clear pointers to private policing by ISPs in the same Principles document.... We cannot just keep using the 2-3 names of these above countries that you mention to discredit anything and everything that the UN or developing countries in general do or propose. Speaking of repeating old hackneyed arguments, as you do below, this one would any day take the cake in global IG space, > > > My feeling about Best Bits is that the majority of participants want to figure out – working collaboratively and constructively – how we can contribute to the development of an open internet that supports democracy and human rights. > > I have no doubt that this is what we and networks that we work with are most interested in.... Democracy btw does not admit vote or veto power for business reps in public policy making . And human rights go much beyond FoE and privacy and cover so many social, economic and cultural issues... > > > Most of us think that involving all stakeholders is crucial to that though we all recognise the difficulties inherent in such a process. I suggest that those of us who want to undertake this work get on with it and those who want something else get on with that. It’s a big world and there’s room for all opinions. > > IT for Change works closely on the ground to promote participatory democracy In India, I would not get into pressing that point too much here... BTW, since you may have missed it, just one thing - it is we who suggested adding 'Multi-stakeholder' (MS) term to the erstwhile Advisory Group of the IGF, it is we who worked with India on the famous "India proposal' during the meetings of WG on IGF improvements and actually were able to get almost all developing countries to agree to strengthening IGF (at least over the first year of WG IGF), whereas you may want to check more on what the so called MSists were doing then.... 'India proposal' and ITfC's proposal strongly pushed for recs giving power for the IGF, strengthening MAG to a much more substantial role, including working through WGs and so on..... You dont think that would amount to working on strengthening the multistakeholder approach.... > > Just because you have created a strawman of multilateralism versus MSism, are you suggesting that MLists, *as defined by you* should move elsewhere and this is a space for MSists to work..... > > > > I also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has been a way in which many new people have been able to enter the conversation about IG and internet policy issues but that there is a danger if the sterile nature of current discussions continues, they will driven away. (Several participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go the way of the IGC.) I think we have thoroughly aired the different views on multi-lateral v multi-stakeholder so can we move on and do the work we each want to do > > No, we havent... But if you think we are all clear about what is MSism and what is MLism (whereby, as you say, we should move on), may I ask you whether MSism includes business reps voting in making actual decisions about substantive public policy issues. A simple direct question, and if you are not clear about any element of it I can clarify... If your answer is yes, I am not a MSist, if it is no, I am as MSist as you or anyone else is. If you give me an answer to this question, I promise I'll move on -- depending on your answer with the MS brigade or the MList one... > > > > though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they want. > > Thanks, but your email really doesnt sound you are too happy that I put my side of what I think were and are important issues following the WGEC meeting, and also as we move forward. > > > I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I will be supporting something different to you. > > As per the above, I really do not know what do you mean by an inter-gov model.... If its identifying feature is that business reps will not be able to vote or veto with regard to substantive public policy issues, then yes I am proposing an inter-gov model (for me, all stakeholders should be an important part of all pre decision making processes, which for me is an MS approach)..... And since you say, you'd support 'something different', may I know whether in your model business will have vote/ veto power in terms of substantive public policy matters... > > > In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years or more. > > How many different ways you have used to tell me not to present my views :). It is really ingenious of you. > > parminder > > So I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the adage of Jon Postel – be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send > > Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Executive Director > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > gp-digital.org > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder > Sent: 19 November 2013 14:13 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC > > > On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Anja > > Thank you for this. > > I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change proposal. > > Could it be differences between ministries? > > No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document with the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also my understanding that this position was developed and approved by an inter ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of all the relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest level clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to rest... > > While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good people of the world seem to live and breathe..... > > Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is just proposing to have done by including all countries of the world that OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers, Information and Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with only the richest countries of the world being involved. Is there anything wrong with it? If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current 'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes global policy and if the differences are on this point, lets discuss it.) > > Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am completely unable to understand how people and organisations that rather enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet policy making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model whenever it is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been taken from the devil himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start getting thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations ever protested against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE, and the such) making Internet policies (for the whole world)? Especially when these rich country clubs dont even include all countries, excluding all those countries whose only fault is that they arent rich? That would be something for civil society to be protesting about.... > > Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told, no, in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil society reps do not participate in actual decision making. They will be told that business and civil society vote or veto on substantive decision making on public policy issues will never never be accepted. Just forget it (and go read your political science books) ! Civil society persons know this will be the response, and they dont want to stand there looking a bit sheepish! > > So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people put this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy' to developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for new institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic deficit in the governance to the Internet, which is today a major instrument of re-distributing all kinds of power? > > I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be given the answer to the above question - why these double standards between developed countries and the developing ones? Why does the meaning of multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model presented by India takes the demonic colors of multilateralism... Any takers? > > Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of global IG... > > > parminder > > > > > > I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications. > > Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are just a but left out of the loop. > > But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by multi-stakeholder IG. > > That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed solutions. > > Anriette > > > On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India made to the WGEC (see below this message and here: http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/ ) > > Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder models for Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government again tabled a proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be established under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP. > > Comments most welcome. > Best, > Anja > Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take over the governance of the Internet? > by Anja Kovacs > > Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation give the strong impression that this is indeed the case. > > In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC), which met for the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government recommended the following: > > The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. > > Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have been revived. > > Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose dominance needs to be established at the expense of other stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other stakeholders will only be given an advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially where the role of civil society is concerned - are outmoded is something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect its proposal. > > Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil society representative. The latter took with this a position quite radically different from other Indian members of civil society active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in this field, who believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way forward. > > Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there might at times be space for multilateralism within this multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new treaty, then from that point onwards, governments would take over as negotiating treaties is their job. > > However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of government dominance in the policy process, irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it also leaves the Internet policy making process much more vulnerable to the vagaries of global geopolitics. > > The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also for developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without their flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To think that principles that should govern the work of these bodies can be formulated or effectively applied without a central involvement of all stakeholders already involved in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be said, conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed. > > The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis Agenda. > > India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that would privilege governments in the making of international Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been established by the government precisely for such purposes in August of this year. > > For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and his own commitment to this model. > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Nov 24 07:56:35 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 07:56:35 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Once again, cc list trimmed, can we PLEASE stop cross posting! On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 7:42 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote: > > I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add my 2 > cents too! > > On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis > of the intellectual property rights provision. > > > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them. so all the reports to the contrary were wrong? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-declines-endorse-oecd-communiqu-principles http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number9.13/csisac-not-endorse-oecd http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/06/28/civil-society-defects-from-oecd-internet-policy-principles/ -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Nov 24 08:07:26 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:07:26 +0100 Subject: AW: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332259@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dixie: On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision. Parminer: This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them. Wolfgang: Parminder, why you are distributing lies just to support your argument? CISAC did not support the OECD principles for two reasons: IPR and intermediatieries. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 24 08:12:15 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 21:12:15 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332259@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332259@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <394B8D43-E890-49C6-BE68-31ABC15C2655@ciroap.org> On 24 Nov 2013, at 9:07 pm, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Dixie: > On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision. > > Parminer: > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them. > > Wolfgang: > Parminder, why you are distributing lies just to support your argument? CISAC did not support the OECD principles for two reasons: IPR and intermediatieries. This is a common point of confusion. CSISAC did not support the Communiqué on Internet Policy-Making Principles, but it did support the subsequent Council Recommendation on Internet Policy-Making Principles, from which the objectionable IP language was removed. So you are both right. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 24 08:25:13 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:25:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Former FCC commissioner Michael Copps on The National Security-Communications Industry Complex Message-ID: Michael Copps' article is indeed quite revealing on the FCC shadow role dwarfed by collusion between big high-tech industry and USG intelligence agencies. He mentions another article by Michael Hirsh, but the link is wrong. A correct link is: http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/how-america-s-top-tech-companies-created-the-surveillance-state-20130725 This latter article summarizes the evolution of the intelligence-industrial complex, from WW II up to the present NSA almighty control. The story exposes very well how NSA came to rely on top-tech industries by making them intimate partners in developing and operating the worldwide spying thing. The ending is somewhat muddy though. Is there any other future than an orwellian albeit unsecure world ? Louis - - - On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Devon Blake wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt < > toml at communisphere.com> wrote: > >> Folks, >> >> Below is an insightful article by former FCC Commissioner Michael Coppson his experiences with national security interests while at the FCC. >> Copps' experiences led me to ponder how civil society might enter into a >> trusting multistakeholder negotiation knowing of these close relationships >> between government and industry. Here's one approach. >> [...] >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 24 08:27:28 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 22:27:28 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> ,<528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp> On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote: >> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add my 2 cents too! >> >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision. >> > > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them. > No Parminder, you're wrong. Civil society (CSISAC: Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the OECD principles on Internet policy making (June 2011 ) Read the document. No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is. Adam > However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive merit of the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I only spoke about their procedural aspects - like inclusiveness, multistakeholder versus multilateral, etc . That these processes > > 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , than some of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP proposal. > > And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with this particular problem of global Internet governance. As for instance we are fond of regularly writing to ITU about its processes, and have even started to speak against proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model which was one of the most participatory of processes that I have ever seen. > > Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above problem of global governance - something which is a constant refrain in most discussions of global governance in the South . How can we simply dismiss this concern. > > Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to be this December). As they renew their mandate, I propose that we write to them, that > > 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and other regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have implications across the globe, to ensure global democracy. > 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy frameworks on other countries - if they indeed think/ know that a particular Internet policy issue is of a global dimension they should from the start itself take it up at a global forum and accordingly develop policies regarding it . > 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same principles of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for global Internet policy related bodies. In this regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, and whether they are same or different than what they seek at the global level, with justification thereof. > 4. An OECD IGF should be set up and given the same policy role that OECD countries seek from the global IGF vis a vis global Internet policies. (Or they may want to manage with an expanded EuroDIG) > > and perhaps a few other points.... (I dont think CCICP meetings are open to observers - that we regularly seek from UN processes, that transcripts of CCICP proceedings are made public - as for instance that of UN WGEC are being made public and so on.......) > > I wont support it but those here who have asked for a decision making role for business and civil society in public policy making (or even an authoritative agenda-filtering/ vetoing role) should also separately write that the CSISAC and the Business advisory group should be assimilated into the CCICP to make a multistakeholder OECD's Internet Policy Committee (paralleling some proposal with regard to global level submitted to WGEC). > > > Well, we may not agree on all of it, but are people here ready to take up this issue and begin framing a letter to the OECD? > > parminder > > PS: Dixie; There are some other important issues in your email below, which I will respond to separately. This is about what willy nilly come off as efforts to foreclose expression of some kind of views on this list (BestBits). It is really getting 'frustrating' (to use your term) to continually be subject to such emails about what is the 'correct' discourse on this list. The views that I express are all very important to us - the people I work with, and they cant be postponed, because in politics what you dont do can be as important as what you do. Neither it is appreciated to put labels of 'inappropriateness of the manner of their expression' on these views. We are all professionals here and know the terms of civil discourse. But some people seem to be forgetting civil society's role to ask hard question of itself and of others, and tolerate internal 'dissent'. > >> And I seem to recall many, many civil society speaking against them at the IGF in Nairobi. In fact, the IRP organised a workshop on copyright that year, one of the main agenda issues discussed was concerns with the OECP Internet Policy-Making Principles. >> >> On the CoE Cybersecurity convention too, I recall huge agreement among civil society that there were serious flaws in the convention, and it was wrong to push it on other countries (and wrong for CoE countries to fully adopt too). In fact, I' specifically remember hearing Anja argue this strongly on many panels. >> >> I think there is so much agreement among civil society on so many issues, but we never reach it because people come back continuously to the few areas where there are disagreement (or where people's opinions aren't fully formed and they aren't willing to concede until they are) and scratch at them on and on that prevents us from working on the areas where there is agreement. If we spent more time working on the areas where there is agreement, I honestly think that by the time we came to the more contentious areas we'd find them much narrower and easier to deal with, then we do by starting at those points. These conversations always seem to be framed as "we need to agree on the most contentious issues BEFORE we discuss anything else". >> >> For example, coming up with a proposal to put forward for the Brazil meeting - I think if we started trying to craft the language, the concerns with the current situation, the things we want to see, I think there would be huge amounts of agreement - strengthening IGF, internationalising ICANN, the values that should be ingrained in any governance mechanism. Then if at the end of that we came to some sort of roadblock (in very crude terms multi-stakeholder vs multi-lateral but I think those generic terms might sound far more apart than they are actually are among many civil society people), we could at that point decide to either submit different proposals, or come up with some slightly diplomatic fudge that most of us could sign on too, and as a result would have a lot of power. That's what happened with the WCIT statement. >> >> Anyways, I'm really frustrated to see the BB list go the same way as the IGC list just one month after we all agreed we didn't want that to happen. And I don't think anyone has caused it by the principles behind what they are saying, but rather by the way in which they say those things. Just to say, I thought the exact same about the debate about civil society funding. It's a completely valid point and I know that we at GPD are working on producing public reports of our funding streams. But it should not be started with: whoever gets funding from x funder is therefore invalid and should not be included in the debate. Again the conversation should start where there is agreement: i.e. "I think transparency and accountability among civil society is important, and one thing we should look at ways of being more transparent about is funding". >> >> Best, >> Dixie >> ________________________________________ >> From: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net >> ] >> Sent: 21 November 2013 14:04 >> To: Andrew Puddephatt >> Cc: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> , >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC >> >> On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on this particular theme. >> I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life to support the free expression of views. But I want BB to be a constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not spiral down as other networks have done. >> >> It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and you still are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you want to sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff of ' old views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man argument... >> >> No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to substantive points.... >> >> My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you. >> >> You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber crime convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do these things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels. >> >> Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies.... When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the number of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write one against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my question... One doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending them - it is enough that CS groups participate in these activties and endorse their outcomes (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively being promoted for global uptake - are we ready to write a statement against such an undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series are of the same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including your organisation participated in the process. But did we say that >> it is no >> t right to not treat all countries at the same level..... It is these questions that would keep coming from the global South.... >> >> >> When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human Rights Council >> No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I cant see HRC being such a body.... >> >> – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment of human rights. >> >> The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global internet related policies.... >> Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they are. I think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that recognised the legitimate interests of states, companies and users and I want that arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in its DNA. >> I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with others in the next few months. My preference is for a dispersed arrangement in which different interests are balanced, but will likely comprise internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments, with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role. >> >> On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and CoE, there is no global body that can anchor norm building and facilitate treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies. >> >> But I’m looking forward to others’ views. >> And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do not. >> >> That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder >> >> It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people. We all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak freely. >> >> >> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Executive Director >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >> gp-digital.org >> >> From: parminder [ >> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net >> ] >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38 >> To: Andrew Puddephatt >> Cc: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> , >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC >> >> Andrew >> >> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do. >> >> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue. >> >> my responses below... >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> >> I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel >> >> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it.... >> >> >> that straw men are being put up to be knocked down so I wanted to pick up on this and set out my own thoughts. >> >> >> You think speaking about OECD and CoE's (council of europe) 'global' public policy activities is a straw man? Well. one of the most pointed interventions made by Carlos during the recent WGEC meeting was that developing countries resent global IG done through processes like the CoE's cybercrime treaty which was first negotiated among a few countries, and then sought to be exported to others.... Brazil took the floor to support Carlos' intervention. Later, India referred to OECD developing Principles for Internet Policy Making. You think they were all putting up strawmen? I am disappointed that such an important position of developing countries against developed country based "global' public policy making, especially in the IG space, is being dismissed in such a summary and disdainful manner. >> >> >> >> Firstly I’m not aware of anyone defending the OECD process of policy making as the model we should follow – maybe I missed that on the thread at some point – but it passed me by. People have been supportive of the changes it has made to become more multi-stakeholder ( rather than promoting it as the example of best practice) - certainly no-one I know who argues for a multi-stakeholder approach has positively supported the OECD’s approach – which in any case requires voluntary adoption of standards rather than produce anything binding. >> >> With the Council of Europe, this is a regional treaty body – not global – which was created in the wake of fascism in 1945 to promote human rights and democracy in Europe. It has a specific geographic focus and essentially sets out standards which it is for nation states to adopt – it does bind member states who have to consent to the norms. It sits alongside the African Union and the Inter-American Commission in this respect (both of which have developing countries in their membership). In the field of human rights protection, with the court in Strasbourg, it has proved very effective and its data protection provisions have also been helpful. Human rights is part of its DNA - but it is not a governance model for the internet and no one I know claims it to be. >> >> The concern I hear about the creation of a state based body to run the internet >> >> What kind of state based body to 'run the Internet' you allude to, and who proposed it.... BTW, do you think that OECD by making Internet policy principles 'runs the Internet', or US through its ICANN/IANA oversight role, and jurisprudence over the companies which are 70 percent of the Internet, 'runs the Internet'..... Or, is it that such loaded terms are to be used only for processes that may include poor, developing countries? (Accompanied by shutting up any counter-discourse by calling it various names as your email is full of...) >> >> >> is not that it would give developing countries a voice – that’s a goal we all share – but because the example of bodies like the Human Rights Council, which has become a place where governments seek to prevent human rights standards from being enforced, rather than a place where positive policies are pursued. Of course the HRC has done good work – but it is a relentless diplomatic battle to hold the line. In the most recent elections Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba were all elected unopposed and I can tell you that very few people in the broad human rights movement are comforted by that. >> >> Yes that is a problem. However, no less is the problem of US's dominance and role in OECD, TPP, kind of global IG processes, for instance its insisting that net neutrality should be removed from OECD principles, and it pushing in overly strong IP protections and some clear pointers to private policing by ISPs in the same Principles document.... We cannot just keep using the 2-3 names of these above countries that you mention to discredit anything and everything that the UN or developing countries in general do or propose. Speaking of repeating old hackneyed arguments, as you do below, this one would any day take the cake in global IG space, >> >> >> My feeling about Best Bits is that the majority of participants want to figure out – working collaboratively and constructively – how we can contribute to the development of an open internet that supports democracy and human rights. >> >> I have no doubt that this is what we and networks that we work with are most interested in.... Democracy btw does not admit vote or veto power for business reps in public policy making . And human rights go much beyond FoE and privacy and cover so many social, economic and cultural issues... >> >> >> Most of us think that involving all stakeholders is crucial to that though we all recognise the difficulties inherent in such a process. I suggest that those of us who want to undertake this work get on with it and those who want something else get on with that. It’s a big world and there’s room for all opinions. >> >> IT for Change works closely on the ground to promote participatory democracy In India, I would not get into pressing that point too much here... BTW, since you may have missed it, just one thing - it is we who suggested adding 'Multi-stakeholder' (MS) term to the erstwhile Advisory Group of the IGF, it is we who worked with India on the famous "India proposal' during the meetings of WG on IGF improvements and actually were able to get almost all developing countries to agree to strengthening IGF (at least over the first year of WG IGF), whereas you may want to check more on what the so called MSists were doing then.... 'India proposal' and ITfC's proposal strongly pushed for recs giving power for the IGF, strengthening MAG to a much more substantial role, including working through WGs and so on..... You dont think that would amount to working on strengthening the multistakeholder approach.... >> >> Just because you have created a strawman of multilateralism versus MSism, are you suggesting that MLists, *as defined by you* should move elsewhere and this is a space for MSists to work..... >> >> >> >> I also feel that the Best Bits platform (not organisation) has been a way in which many new people have been able to enter the conversation about IG and internet policy issues but that there is a danger if the sterile nature of current discussions continues, they will driven away. (Several participants at Bali said they did not want BB to go the way of the IGC.) I think we have thoroughly aired the different views on multi-lateral v multi-stakeholder so can we move on and do the work we each want to do >> >> No, we havent... But if you think we are all clear about what is MSism and what is MLism (whereby, as you say, we should move on), may I ask you whether MSism includes business reps voting in making actual decisions about substantive public policy issues. A simple direct question, and if you are not clear about any element of it I can clarify... If your answer is yes, I am not a MSist, if it is no, I am as MSist as you or anyone else is. If you give me an answer to this question, I promise I'll move on -- depending on your answer with the MS brigade or the MList one... >> >> >> >> though of course – to be clear – anyone is free to post anything they want. >> >> Thanks, but your email really doesnt sound you are too happy that I put my side of what I think were and are important issues following the WGEC meeting, and also as we move forward. >> >> >> I wish those proposing an inter governmental model the best but I will be supporting something different to you. >> >> As per the above, I really do not know what do you mean by an inter-gov model.... If its identifying feature is that business reps will not be able to vote or veto with regard to substantive public policy issues, then yes I am proposing an inter-gov model (for me, all stakeholders should be an important part of all pre decision making processes, which for me is an MS approach)..... And since you say, you'd support 'something different', may I know whether in your model business will have vote/ veto power in terms of substantive public policy matters... >> >> >> In addition, for myself, I would like to see a younger, dynamic policy leadership emerge in this field so that we don’t just see the same old voices rehashing the same arguments that have been around for 10 years or more. >> >> How many different ways you have used to tell me not to present my views :). It is really ingenious of you. >> >> parminder >> >> So I would ask the veterans in this debate to remember the adage of Jon Postel – be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send >> >> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Executive Director >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >> gp-digital.org >> >> From: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> ] On Behalf Of parminder >> Sent: 19 November 2013 14:13 >> To: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> , >> Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC >> >> >> On Monday 18 November 2013 09:23 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Dear Anja >> >> Thank you for this. >> >> I followed the meeting remotely (which was really hard as I could not get the webcast but I could follow the transcript) and noticed this similarity with the CIRP proposal and the IT For Change proposal. >> >> Could it be differences between ministries? >> >> No, it isnt. My understanding is that this time around the document with the mentioned Indian position came from the Department of IT to the WGEC, and not the Ministry of External Affairs..... It is also my understanding that this position was developed and approved by an inter ministerial group (headed by Department if IT), consisting of all the relevant ministries, and more, and have all the highest level clearances. Hopefully this will put all speculations to rest... >> >> While I am on the subject, let me also give me views on what gets demonised as 'multilateral' versus multistakeholderism that all good people of the world seem to live and breathe..... >> >> Now, indeed, I am repeating it for the hundredth time that India is just proposing to have done by including all countries of the world that OECD's Internet policy body (Committee on Computers, Information and Communication Policy or CCICP) already does with only the richest countries of the world being involved. Is there anything wrong with it? If so, what? Isnt it just a vast improvement over the current 'global' Internet policy making system? (Yes, OECD makes global policy and if the differences are on this point, lets discuss it.) >> >> Now, this is not directed against any person(s), but just against a political viewpoint that I have the right to critique. I am completely unable to understand how people and organisations that rather enthusiastically engage with OECD's 'multilateral' Internet policy making, become so active to criticize exactly the same model whenever it is proposed by developing countries, as if it had been taken from the devil himself..... and that dark term 'multilateralism' start getting thrown around. Why havent these people/organisations ever protested against the multilateralism of OECD (or of CoE, and the such) making Internet policies (for the whole world)? Especially when these rich country clubs dont even include all countries, excluding all those countries whose only fault is that they arent rich? That would be something for civil society to be protesting about.... >> >> Now, let me guess why such civil society critics do not take the multistakeholder 'policy making' mime to these developed country institutions. Maybe, they will be laughed at in their face and told, no, in democratic systems big business and self appointed civil society reps do not participate in actual decision making. They will be told that business and civil society vote or veto on substantive decision making on public policy issues will never never be accepted. Just forget it (and go read your political science books) ! Civil society persons know this will be the response, and they dont want to stand there looking a bit sheepish! >> >> So the question remains, why do then the same civil society people put this demand of 'equal role in decision making on public policy' to developing countries, whenever the latter put up any proposal for new institutional developments to fill in the deep democratic deficit in the governance to the Internet, which is today a major instrument of re-distributing all kinds of power? >> >> I dont know the answer, but we from developing countries must be given the answer to the above question - why these double standards between developed countries and the developing ones? Why does the meaning of multilaterlism and multistakeholderism change so suddenly when an institutional proposal comes from developing countries? Why if OECD's CCICP is acceptably multistakehoder and exactly the same model presented by India takes the demonic colors of multilateralism... Any takers? >> >> Happy to further discuss India's and other proposals for the future of global IG... >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> I have had a sense that in the case of India, similar to South Africa, the ministry of foreign affairs agenda has not always been fully cleared with, or co-developed with, the ministry of communications. >> >> Ministries of foreign affairs usually try to plug in issue specific matters into a broader foreign policy agenda. Sometimes this works will for the line ministries, sometimes not.. or sometimes they are just a but left out of the loop. >> >> But I think we should also allow for the fact that all governments, including some of those most committed to multi-stakeholder participation, should be watched carefully, not just those who openly put a multi-lateral model on the table. Often governments pay lip service to 'multi-stakeholder' models but they are quite comfortable also working in multi-lateral frameworks and mashing them up in their speeches and inputs without really concretising what they mean by multi-stakeholder IG. >> >> That is why as CS we need to be really vigilant and demand very clear commitments and mechanisms that allow us to be integrally part of proposed solutions. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 18/11/2013 10:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> As I thought this would be of interest to many people on these lists, I wanted to share a short blog post about the proposal for EC India made to the WGEC (see below this message and here: >> http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/11/is-india-reviving-its-un-cirp-proposal/ >> ) >> >> Over the past year, for various reasons, the earlier UN CIRP proposal seemed to be off the table and Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, in particular had become increasingly vocal about his support for multistakeholder models for Internet governance. However, during the meeting of the WGEC earlier this month, the Indian government again tabled a proposal for a multilateral Internet policy to be established under the UN, very similar to the earlier UN CIRP. >> >> Comments most welcome. >> Best, >> Anja >> Is India reviving its proposal for a multilateral UN body to take over the governance of the Internet? >> by Anja Kovacs >> >> Recent events at the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation give the strong impression that this is indeed the case. >> >> In a submission to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) >> >> , which met for the second time in Geneva last week, the Indian government recommended the following: >> >> The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. >> >> Despite the fact that stakeholders from India already active within the field of Internet governance have overwhelmingly disagreed with India’s earlier proposal to establish a Committee for Internet-related Policies within the UN (UN CIRP), this proposal thus seems to have been revived. >> >> Like the earlier one, the proposal that is currently on the table is problematic for a number of reasons. It clearly seeks to endorse governments as the primary stakeholders in Internet governance, whose dominance needs to be established at the expense of other stakeholders. Irrespective of the issue under consideration, other stakeholders will only be given an advisory role in Internet governance. Moreover, they will only be allowed to play the roles defined in the Tunis Agenda. That these definitions - especially where the role of civil society is concerned - are outmoded is something that has been recognised widely. During last week’s WGEC meeting, India acknowledged the debates around the role definitions of the Tunis Agenda, but said nothing about how these debates might affect its proposal. >> >> Support for India’s proposal at the meeting of the 42-member WGEC only came from the government of Saudi Arabia and from an Indian civil society representative. The latter took with this a position quite radically different from other Indian members of civil society active in Internet governace, or indeed from most of global civil society in this field, who believe that a multistakeholder model for Internet governance is the way forward. >> >> Many, including the Internet Democracy Project, have argued that there might at times be space for multilateralism within this multistakeholder model. For example, if a multistakeholder group comes to the conclusion that the best way forward to protect the right to privacy of all people in the Internet age is a new treaty, then from that point onwards, governments would take over as negotiating treaties is their job. >> >> However, a crucial difference between such proposals and the ones currently and previously made by the Indian government is that in a multistakeholder model, broad agreement among all stakeholders, including on the modalities, is a prerequisite for any solution to go forward. The India proposals, in contrast, presume the necessity of government dominance in the policy process, irrespective of the problem at hand, and thus requires agreement only among governments. This not only means that inputs by other stakeholders need not necessarily be given due consideration, it also leaves the Internet policy making process much more vulnerable to the vagaries of global geopolitics. >> >> The proposal by India that the new UN body would be responsible also for developing globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources is particularly surprising in this regard. So far, the coordination and management of critical Internet resources lies overwhelmingly with bodies such as ICANN that, though not without their flaws, are already multistakeholder in their functioning. To think that principles that should govern the work of these bodies can be formulated or effectively applied without a central involvement of all stakeholders already involved in these groups (stakeholders who often have, it should be said, conflicting views about the way forward) is obviously deeply flawed. >> >> The multistakeholder WGEC is charged with making recommendations on how to fully implement the mandate of enhanced cooperation contained in the Tunis Agenda. >> >> India’s renewed proposal, in this context, to establish a UN body that would privilege governments in the making of international Internet-related public policy was made without any domestic consultation, even if a Multistakeholder Advisory Group had been established by the government precisely for such purposes in August of this year. >> >> For many observers in India, it therefore came as something of a surprise - even more so as Mr. Kapil Sibal, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, has repeatedly stressed over the past year (and as recently as 17 October) the importance of multistakeholderism for effective Internet policy making, and his own commitment to this model. >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> >> anriette esterhuysen >> anriette at apc.org >> >> >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> >> >> www.apc.org >> >> >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> >> south africa >> >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Sun Nov 24 08:51:24 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:51:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: <8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp> References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> <8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: As far as I understood when I used to follow this process, CSISAC did support a modified version of these principles. I'm happy to stand corrected by those who know more. http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making In a press release published on 19 December 2011, the CSISAC welcomes the Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making adoped by the OECD Council on 13 December 2011, which reaffirms OECD commitment to a free, open and inclusive Internet. Most critically, this Recommendation envisions a collaborative decision-making process that is inclusive of civil society issues and concerns, such as those expressed by CSISAC when it declined to support a previous Communique resulting from the OECD High Level Meeting of June 2011. CSISAC looks forward to working with the OECD in order to develop the Principles itemized in the December Recommendation in greater detail and in a manner that promotes openness, is grounded in respect for human rights and the rule of law, and strengthens the capacity to improve the quality of life for all citizens. On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote: > > On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote: > >> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add > my 2 cents too! > >> > >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the > basis of the intellectual property rights provision. > >> > > > > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them. > > > > > No Parminder, you're wrong. Civil society (CSISAC: Civil Society > Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the OECD principles > on Internet policy making (June 2011 < > http://www.oecd.org/internet/innovation/48289796.pdf>) Read the document. > > No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is. > > Adam > > > > > However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive merit of the > outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I only spoke > about their procedural aspects - like inclusiveness, multistakeholder > versus multilateral, etc . That these processes > > > > 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and > > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , than some of > the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP proposal. > > > > And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with this > particular problem of global Internet governance. As for instance we are > fond of regularly writing to ITU about its processes, and have even started > to speak against proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model > which was one of the most participatory of processes that I have ever seen. > > > > Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above problem of > global governance - something which is a constant refrain in most > discussions of global governance in the South . How can we simply dismiss > this concern. > > > > Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet > policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to be > this December). As they renew their mandate, I propose that we write to > them, that > > > > 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and other > regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have implications > across the globe, to ensure global democracy. > > 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy frameworks on > other countries - if they indeed think/ know that a particular Internet > policy issue is of a global dimension they should from the start itself > take it up at a global forum and accordingly develop policies regarding it . > > 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same principles of > multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for global Internet policy > related bodies. In this regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of > different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, > and whether they are same or different than what they seek at the global > level, with justification thereof. > > 4. An OECD IGF should be set up and given the same policy role that OECD > countries seek from the global IGF vis a vis global Internet policies. (Or > they may want to manage with an expanded EuroDIG) > > > > and perhaps a few other points.... (I dont think CCICP meetings are open > to observers - that we regularly seek from UN processes, that transcripts > of CCICP proceedings are made public - as for instance that of UN WGEC are > being made public and so on.......) > > > > I wont support it but those here who have asked for a decision making > role for business and civil society in public policy making (or even an > authoritative agenda-filtering/ vetoing role) should also separately write > that the CSISAC and the Business advisory group should be assimilated into > the CCICP to make a multistakeholder OECD's Internet Policy Committee > (paralleling some proposal with regard to global level submitted to WGEC). > > > > > > Well, we may not agree on all of it, but are people here ready to take > up this issue and begin framing a letter to the OECD? > > > > parminder > > > > PS: Dixie; There are some other important issues in your email below, > which I will respond to separately. This is about what willy nilly come off > as efforts to foreclose expression of some kind of views on this list > (BestBits). It is really getting 'frustrating' (to use your term) to > continually be subject to such emails about what is the 'correct' discourse > on this list. The views that I express are all very important to us - the > people I work with, and they cant be postponed, because in politics what > you dont do can be as important as what you do. Neither it is appreciated > to put labels of 'inappropriateness of the manner of their expression' on > these views. We are all professionals here and know the terms of civil > discourse. But some people seem to be forgetting civil society's role to > ask hard question of itself and of others, and tolerate internal 'dissent'. > > > >> And I seem to recall many, many civil society speaking against them at > the IGF in Nairobi. In fact, the IRP organised a workshop on copyright that > year, one of the main agenda issues discussed was concerns with the OECP > Internet Policy-Making Principles. > >> > >> On the CoE Cybersecurity convention too, I recall huge agreement among > civil society that there were serious flaws in the convention, and it was > wrong to push it on other countries (and wrong for CoE countries to fully > adopt too). In fact, I' specifically remember hearing Anja argue this > strongly on many panels. > >> > >> I think there is so much agreement among civil society on so many > issues, but we >> , > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of > India to the WGEC > >> > >> On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > >> As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on > this particular theme. > >> I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life > to support the free expression of views. But I want BB to be a > constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not spiral > down as other networks have done. > >> > >> It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta > constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and you still > are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you want to > sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff of ' old > views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man argument... > >> > >> No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to > substantive points.... > >> > >> My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but > that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as > appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I > apologise for misunderstanding you. > >> > >> You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and > norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber crime > convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you > criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do these > things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels. > >> > >> Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy > activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies.... > When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the number > of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write one > against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my question... One > doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending them - it is enough > that CS groups participate in these activties and endorse their outcomes > (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively > being promoted for global uptake - are we ready to write a statement > against such an undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series > are of the same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt > developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process > recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including your > organisation participated in the process. But did we say that > >> it is no > >> t right to not treat all countries at the same level..... It is these > questions that would keep coming from the global South.... > >> > >> > >> When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human > Rights Council > >> No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I > asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I cant > see HRC being such a body.... > >> > >> – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the > current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that > leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast > detriment of human rights. > >> > >> The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global > internet related policies.... > >> Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are > satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they are. I > think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that recognised the > legitimate interests of states, companies and users and I want that > arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in its DNA. > >> I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with others > in the next few months. My preference is for a dispersed arrangement in > which different interests are balanced, but will likely comprise > internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments, > with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role. > >> > >> On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this > is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and CoE, > there is no global body that can anchor norm building and facilitate > treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies. > >> > >> But I’m looking forward to others’ views. > >> And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to > people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do > not. > >> > >> That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just > discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder > >> > >> It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people. We > all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking > about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak > freely. > >> > >> > >> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > >> Executive Director > >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: > andrewpuddephatt > >> gp-digital.org > >> > >> From: parminder [ > >> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net > >> ] > >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38 > >> To: Andrew Puddephatt > >> Cc: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > >> , > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of > India to the WGEC > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not > quite sure that is a good thing to do. > >> > >> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings > of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them > directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation > which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people > need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious > personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group > responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let > pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to > present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the > issue. > >> > >> my responses below... > >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > >> > >> I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel > >> > >> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are > engaging in it.... > >> > >> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Nov 24 09:07:59 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:07:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> <8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <52741740-24C3-477B-9BDC-A5BBA60ADCDC@glocom.ac.jp> I think we know what was endorsed and what wasn't. Please, just read the documents, it's pretty clear. Adam On Nov 24, 2013, at 10:51 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > As far as I understood when I used to follow this process, CSISAC did support a modified version of these principles. I'm happy to stand corrected by those who know more. > > http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php > > CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making > In a press release published on 19 December 2011, the CSISAC welcomes the Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making adoped by the OECD Council on 13 December 2011, which reaffirms OECD commitment to a free, open and inclusive Internet. > > Most critically, this Recommendation envisions a collaborative decision-making process that is inclusive of civil society issues and concerns, such as those expressed by CSISAC when it declined to support a previous Communique resulting from the OECD High Level Meeting of June 2011. > > CSISAC looks forward to working with the OECD in order to develop the Principles itemized in the December Recommendation in greater detail and in a manner that promotes openness, is grounded in respect for human rights and the rule of law, and strengthens the capacity to improve the quality of life for all citizens. > > > On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote: > > On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote: > >> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add my 2 cents too! > >> > >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision. > >> > > > > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them. > > > > > No Parminder, you're wrong. Civil society (CSISAC: Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the OECD principles on Internet policy making (June 2011 ) Read the document. > > No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is. > > Adam > > > > > However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive merit of the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I only spoke about their procedural aspects - like inclusiveness, multistakeholder versus multilateral, etc . That these processes > > > > 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and > > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , than some of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP proposal. > > > > And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with this particular problem of global Internet governance. As for instance we are fond of regularly writing to ITU about its processes, and have even started to speak against proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model which was one of the most participatory of processes that I have ever seen. > > > > Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above problem of global governance - something which is a constant refrain in most discussions of global governance in the South . How can we simply dismiss this concern. > > > > Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to be this December). As they renew their mandate, I propose that we write to them, that > > > > 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and other regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have implications across the globe, to ensure global democracy. > > 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy frameworks on other countries - if they indeed think/ know that a particular Internet policy issue is of a global dimension they should from the start itself take it up at a global forum and accordingly develop policies regarding it . > > 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same principles of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for global Internet policy related bodies. In this regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, and whether they are same or different than what they seek at the global level, with justification thereof. > > 4. An OECD IGF should be set up and given the same policy role that OECD countries seek from the global IGF vis a vis global Internet policies. (Or they may want to manage with an expanded EuroDIG) > > > > and perhaps a few other points.... (I dont think CCICP meetings are open to observers - that we regularly seek from UN processes, that transcripts of CCICP proceedings are made public - as for instance that of UN WGEC are being made public and so on.......) > > > > I wont support it but those here who have asked for a decision making role for business and civil society in public policy making (or even an authoritative agenda-filtering/ vetoing role) should also separately write that the CSISAC and the Business advisory group should be assimilated into the CCICP to make a multistakeholder OECD's Internet Policy Committee (paralleling some proposal with regard to global level submitted to WGEC). > > > > > > Well, we may not agree on all of it, but are people here ready to take up this issue and begin framing a letter to the OECD? > > > > parminder > > > > PS: Dixie; There are some other important issues in your email below, which I will respond to separately. This is about what willy nilly come off as efforts to foreclose expression of some kind of views on this list (BestBits). It is really getting 'frustrating' (to use your term) to continually be subject to such emails about what is the 'correct' discourse on this list. The views that I express are all very important to us - the people I work with, and they cant be postponed, because in politics what you dont do can be as important as what you do. Neither it is appreciated to put labels of 'inappropriateness of the manner of their expression' on these views. We are all professionals here and know the terms of civil discourse. But some people seem to be forgetting civil society's role to ask hard question of itself and of others, and tolerate internal 'dissent'. > > > >> And I seem to recall many, many civil society speaking against them at the IGF in Nairobi. In fact, the IRP organised a workshop on copyright that year, one of the main agenda issues discussed was concerns with the OECP Internet Policy-Making Principles. > >> > >> On the CoE Cybersecurity convention too, I recall huge agreement among civil society that there were serious flaws in the convention, and it was wrong to push it on other countries (and wrong for CoE countries to fully adopt too). In fact, I' specifically remember hearing Anja argue this strongly on many panels. > >> > >> I think there is so much agreement among civil society on so many issues, but we >> , > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC > >> > >> On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > >> As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on this particular theme. > >> I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life to support the free expression of views. But I want BB to be a constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not spiral down as other networks have done. > >> > >> It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and you still are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you want to sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff of ' old views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man argument... > >> > >> No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to substantive points.... > >> > >> My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you. > >> > >> You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber crime convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do these things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels. > >> > >> Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies.... When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the number of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write one against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my question... One doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending them - it is enough that CS groups participate in these activties and endorse their outcomes (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively being promoted for global uptake - are we ready to write a statement against such an undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series are of the same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including your organisation participated in the process. But did we say that > >> it is no > >> t right to not treat all countries at the same level..... It is these questions that would keep coming from the global South.... > >> > >> > >> When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human Rights Council > >> No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I cant see HRC being such a body.... > >> > >> – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment of human rights. > >> > >> The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global internet related policies.... > >> Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they are. I think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that recognised the legitimate interests of states, companies and users and I want that arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in its DNA. > >> I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with others in the next few months. My preference is for a dispersed arrangement in which different interests are balanced, but will likely comprise internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments, with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role. > >> > >> On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and CoE, there is no global body that can anchor norm building and facilitate treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies. > >> > >> But I’m looking forward to others’ views. > >> And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do not. > >> > >> That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder > >> > >> It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people. We all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak freely. > >> > >> > >> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > >> Executive Director > >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > >> gp-digital.org > >> > >> From: parminder [ > >> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net > >> ] > >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38 > >> To: Andrew Puddephatt > >> Cc: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > >> , > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do. > >> > >> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue. > >> > >> my responses below... > >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > >> > >> I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel > >> > >> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it.... > >> > >> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 genekimmelman at gmail.com Sun Nov 24 09:13:18 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 09:13:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> <8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <589E6755-30C0-4003-8859-0E0DAFB5F773@gmail.com> This type of conversation has been going on for some time, so I'd like to propose a way to move this forward: My impression is that is this policy space, as is the case in many others, CSOs enter the debate at one point in time, addressing one particular issue. Many stay focused on a narrow agenda, some expand to a broader view of the policy environment. Without commenting on what is right or wrong, I suggest that those who take a more holistic approach to the geopolitical dynamic offer generic language which can be applied broadly to policymaking processes from many (or all) realms of multilateral decision making which impact the values and goals we jointly share. Then others can decide whether they want to add this to their agenda/approach to each policy forum. Maybe a Best Bits committee of those interested in this could be formed to offer up such language? I know Parminder has already suggested one approach. Are there others? Regardless, this strikes me like a logical task for a small group of motivated individuals, and not for the entire list(s). On Nov 24, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > As far as I understood when I used to follow this process, CSISAC did support a modified version of these principles. I'm happy to stand corrected by those who know more. > > http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php > > CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making > In a press release published on 19 December 2011, the CSISAC welcomes the Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making adoped by the OECD Council on 13 December 2011, which reaffirms OECD commitment to a free, open and inclusive Internet. > > Most critically, this Recommendation envisions a collaborative decision-making process that is inclusive of civil society issues and concerns, such as those expressed by CSISAC when it declined to support a previous Communique resulting from the OECD High Level Meeting of June 2011. > > CSISAC looks forward to working with the OECD in order to develop the Principles itemized in the December Recommendation in greater detail and in a manner that promotes openness, is grounded in respect for human rights and the rule of law, and strengthens the capacity to improve the quality of life for all citizens. > > > On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote: > > On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote: > >> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add my 2 cents too! > >> > >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision. > >> > > > > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them. > > > > > No Parminder, you're wrong. Civil society (CSISAC: Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the OECD principles on Internet policy making (June 2011 ) Read the document. > > No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is. > > Adam > > > > > However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive merit of the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I only spoke about their procedural aspects - like inclusiveness, multistakeholder versus multilateral, etc . That these processes > > > > 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and > > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , than some of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP proposal. > > > > And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with this particular problem of global Internet governance. As for instance we are fond of regularly writing to ITU about its processes, and have even started to speak against proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model which was one of the most participatory of processes that I have ever seen. > > > > Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above problem of global governance - something which is a constant refrain in most discussions of global governance in the South . How can we simply dismiss this concern. > > > > Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to be this December). As they renew their mandate, I propose that we write to them, that > > > > 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and other regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have implications across the globe, to ensure global democracy. > > 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy frameworks on other countries - if they indeed think/ know that a particular Internet policy issue is of a global dimension they should from the start itself take it up at a global forum and accordingly develop policies regarding it . > > 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same principles of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for global Internet policy related bodies. In this regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, and whether they are same or different than what they seek at the global level, with justification thereof. > > 4. An OECD IGF should be set up and given the same policy role that OECD countries seek from the global IGF vis a vis global Internet policies. (Or they may want to manage with an expanded EuroDIG) > > > > and perhaps a few other points.... (I dont think CCICP meetings are open to observers - that we regularly seek from UN processes, that transcripts of CCICP proceedings are made public - as for instance that of UN WGEC are being made public and so on.......) > > > > I wont support it but those here who have asked for a decision making role for business and civil society in public policy making (or even an authoritative agenda-filtering/ vetoing role) should also separately write that the CSISAC and the Business advisory group should be assimilated into the CCICP to make a multistakeholder OECD's Internet Policy Committee (paralleling some proposal with regard to global level submitted to WGEC). > > > > > > Well, we may not agree on all of it, but are people here ready to take up this issue and begin framing a letter to the OECD? > > > > parminder > > > > PS: Dixie; There are some other important issues in your email below, which I will respond to separately. This is about what willy nilly come off as efforts to foreclose expression of some kind of views on this list (BestBits). It is really getting 'frustrating' (to use your term) to continually be subject to such emails about what is the 'correct' discourse on this list. The views that I express are all very important to us - the people I work with, and they cant be postponed, because in politics what you dont do can be as important as what you do. Neither it is appreciated to put labels of 'inappropriateness of the manner of their expression' on these views. We are all professionals here and know the terms of civil discourse. But some people seem to be forgetting civil society's role to ask hard question of itself and of others, and tolerate internal 'dissent'. > > > >> And I seem to recall many, many civil society speaking against them at the IGF in Nairobi. In fact, the IRP organised a workshop on copyright that year, one of the main agenda issues discussed was concerns with the OECP Internet Policy-Making Principles. > >> > >> On the CoE Cybersecurity convention too, I recall huge agreement among civil society that there were serious flaws in the convention, and it was wrong to push it on other countries (and wrong for CoE countries to fully adopt too). In fact, I' specifically remember hearing Anja argue this strongly on many panels. > >> > >> I think there is so much agreement among civil society on so many issues, but we >> , > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC > >> > >> On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > >> As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on this particular theme. > >> I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life to support the free expression of views. But I want BB to be a constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not spiral down as other networks have done. > >> > >> It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and you still are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you want to sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff of ' old views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man argument... > >> > >> No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to substantive points.... > >> > >> My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you. > >> > >> You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber crime convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do these things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels. > >> > >> Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies.... When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the number of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write one against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my question... One doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending them - it is enough that CS groups participate in these activties and endorse their outcomes (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively being promoted for global uptake - are we ready to write a statement against such an undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series are of the same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including your organisation participated in the process. But did we say that > >> it is no > >> t right to not treat all countries at the same level..... It is these questions that would keep coming from the global South.... > >> > >> > >> When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human Rights Council > >> No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I cant see HRC being such a body.... > >> > >> – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment of human rights. > >> > >> The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global internet related policies.... > >> Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they are. I think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that recognised the legitimate interests of states, companies and users and I want that arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in its DNA. > >> I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with others in the next few months. My preference is for a dispersed arrangement in which different interests are balanced, but will likely comprise internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments, with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role. > >> > >> On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and CoE, there is no global body that can anchor norm building and facilitate treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies. > >> > >> But I’m looking forward to others’ views. > >> And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do not. > >> > >> That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder > >> > >> It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people. We all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak freely. > >> > >> > >> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > >> Executive Director > >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > >> gp-digital.org > >> > >> From: parminder [ > >> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net > >> ] > >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38 > >> To: Andrew Puddephatt > >> Cc: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > >> , > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do. > >> > >> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue. > >> > >> my responses below... > >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > >> > >> I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel > >> > >> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it.... > >> > >> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 24 09:51:20 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 15:51:20 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> <8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp> <52741740-24C3-477B-9BDC-A5BBA60ADCDC@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Again: The two principles which did not get a CISAC endorsement was IPR and intermediarities. The opposition of CISAC to the two principles was ere outspoken but ignored by an article in the Washington Post by David Weitzer. This was corrected later when CISAC reconfirmed that it had its own position and did not change it. In contrary, as the statement - re-distributed by Andrea - says clearly, CISAC expected a continuation of the debate around the two controvrsial principles with the aim to improve the lanague and to make it acceptable to civil society. This OECD debate did influence also the final stage of the elaboration of the Council of Europe principles - which was negotiated in parallel. In the COE we avoided controversial OECD language and got the full endorsement by all parties. w -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake Gesendet: So 24.11.2013 15:07 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Andrea Glorioso Cc: parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC I think we know what was endorsed and what wasn't. Please, just read the documents, it's pretty clear. Adam On Nov 24, 2013, at 10:51 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > As far as I understood when I used to follow this process, CSISAC did support a modified version of these principles. I'm happy to stand corrected by those who know more. > > http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php > > CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making > In a press release published on 19 December 2011, the CSISAC welcomes the Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making adoped by the OECD Council on 13 December 2011, which reaffirms OECD commitment to a free, open and inclusive Internet. > > Most critically, this Recommendation envisions a collaborative decision-making process that is inclusive of civil society issues and concerns, such as those expressed by CSISAC when it declined to support a previous Communique resulting from the OECD High Level Meeting of June 2011. > > CSISAC looks forward to working with the OECD in order to develop the Principles itemized in the December Recommendation in greater detail and in a manner that promotes openness, is grounded in respect for human rights and the rule of law, and strengthens the capacity to improve the quality of life for all citizens. > > > On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote: > > On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote: > >> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add my 2 cents too! > >> > >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision. > >> > > > > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them. > > > > > No Parminder, you're wrong. Civil society (CSISAC: Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the OECD principles on Internet policy making (June 2011 ) Read the document. > > No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is. > > Adam > > > > > However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive merit of the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I only spoke about their procedural aspects - like inclusiveness, multistakeholder versus multilateral, etc . That these processes > > > > 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and > > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , than some of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP proposal. > > > > And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with this particular problem of global Internet governance. As for instance we are fond of regularly writing to ITU about its processes, and have even started to speak against proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model which was one of the most participatory of processes that I have ever seen. > > > > Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above problem of global governance - something which is a constant refrain in most discussions of global governance in the South . How can we simply dismiss this concern. > > > > Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to be this December). As they renew their mandate, I propose that we write to them, that > > > > 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and other regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have implications across the globe, to ensure global democracy. > > 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy frameworks on other countries - if they indeed think/ know that a particular Internet policy issue is of a global dimension they should from the start itself take it up at a global forum and accordingly develop policies regarding it . > > 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same principles of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for global Internet policy related bodies. In this regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, and whether they are same or different than what they seek at the global level, with justification thereof. > > 4. An OECD IGF should be set up and given the same policy role that OECD countries seek from the global IGF vis a vis global Internet policies. (Or they may want to manage with an expanded EuroDIG) > > > > and perhaps a few other points.... (I dont think CCICP meetings are open to observers - that we regularly seek from UN processes, that transcripts of CCICP proceedings are made public - as for instance that of UN WGEC are being made public and so on.......) > > > > I wont support it but those here who have asked for a decision making role for business and civil society in public policy making (or even an authoritative agenda-filtering/ vetoing role) should also separately write that the CSISAC and the Business advisory group should be assimilated into the CCICP to make a multistakeholder OECD's Internet Policy Committee (paralleling some proposal with regard to global level submitted to WGEC). > > > > > > Well, we may not agree on all of it, but are people here ready to take up this issue and begin framing a letter to the OECD? > > > > parminder > > > > PS: Dixie; There are some other important issues in your email below, which I will respond to separately. This is about what willy nilly come off as efforts to foreclose expression of some kind of views on this list (BestBits). It is really getting 'frustrating' (to use your term) to continually be subject to such emails about what is the 'correct' discourse on this list. The views that I express are all very important to us - the people I work with, and they cant be postponed, because in politics what you dont do can be as important as what you do. Neither it is appreciated to put labels of 'inappropriateness of the manner of their expression' on these views. We are all professionals here and know the terms of civil discourse. But some people seem to be forgetting civil society's role to ask hard question of itself and of others, and tolerate internal 'dissent'. > > > >> And I seem to recall many, many civil society speaking against them at the IGF in Nairobi. In fact, the IRP organised a workshop on copyright that year, one of the main agenda issues discussed was concerns with the OECP Internet Policy-Making Principles. > >> > >> On the CoE Cybersecurity convention too, I recall huge agreement among civil society that there were serious flaws in the convention, and it was wrong to push it on other countries (and wrong for CoE countries to fully adopt too). In fact, I' specifically remember hearing Anja argue this strongly on many panels. > >> > >> I think there is so much agreement among civil society on so many issues, but we >> , > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC > >> > >> On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > >> As I intend to follow Jon Postel's adage, this is my last comment on this particular theme. > >> I would never ask anyone to "shut up" as I have worked most of my life to support the free expression of views. But I want BB to be a constructive platform for the exchange of everyone's views and not spiral down as other networks have done. > >> > >> It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and you still are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you want to sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff of ' old views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man argument... > >> > >> No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to substantive points.... > >> > >> My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don't have influence but that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that's not what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you. > >> > >> You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber crime convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do these things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels. > >> > >> Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies.... When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the number of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write one against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my question... One doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending them - it is enough that CS groups participate in these activties and endorse their outcomes (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively being promoted for global uptake - are we ready to write a statement against such an undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series are of the same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including your organisation participated in the process. But did we say that > >> it is no > >> t right to not treat all countries at the same level..... It is these questions that would keep coming from the global South.... > >> > >> > >> When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human Rights Council > >> No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I cant see HRC being such a body.... > >> > >> - a group of states elected from within the UNGA - which I fear in the current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment of human rights. > >> > >> The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global internet related policies.... > >> Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are satisfactory - and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they are. I think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that recognised the legitimate interests of states, companies and users and I want that arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in its DNA. > >> I'm keen to explore what that governance structure might be with others in the next few months. My preference is for a dispersed arrangement in which different interests are balanced, but will likely comprise internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments, with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role. > >> > >> On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and CoE, there is no global body that can anchor norm building and facilitate treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies. > >> > >> But I'm looking forward to others' views. > >> And finally, on a personal note - please do not, when you reply to people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do not. > >> > >> That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder > >> > >> It's the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people. We all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak freely. > >> > >> > >> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > >> Executive Director > >> Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > >> gp-digital.org > >> > >> From: parminder [ > >> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net > >> ] > >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38 > >> To: Andrew Puddephatt > >> Cc: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > >> , > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do. > >> > >> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue. > >> > >> my responses below... > >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > >> > >> I don't normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel > >> > >> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it.... > >> > >> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com Sun Nov 24 11:59:15 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 11:59:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: All, Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated. I'm suggesting that we should modify both the words and concept of Sala's suggestions and my response. Let's not think of doing anything formal; I think that both ends would balk at that, and for good reason. Instead, I'll just be somewhat more active on this list, and if anything comes up with respect to the technical community that I can clarify or help with on an informal and personal basis, I'll try to do that. So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if any of them resonate with any of you. First, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns. As I recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits. The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize. Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined. Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered. Second, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood. At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels. In order to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating about them. That function may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long term, or both. In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it is extremely important. Third, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating groups of ideas. A couple of examples illustrate the point. To the extent that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage their participation. Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on inter-stakeholder group separation. Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, I conclude that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects of that approach. This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I realize that what I have written, and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas that I think may be useful. The more nuanced discussion can and will come later. Your comments are welcome. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Nov 23, 2013, at 1:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Thanks George and it is a potentially interesting proposition. > > But I must say that I’m unclear as to precisely what role is being suggested here. If the role is to attempt to frame the diversity of voices being articulated in civil society (in my case including those of the community informatics community for example) in a manner in which it can be more readily understood/assimilated/responded to by the technical community I think that is very useful. > > If it is, on the other hand, to act as a more or less “authoritative”/designated “filter” of communications/voices from Civil Society to the Technical Community then I can see quite considerable difficulty and controversy resulting, if nothing else, from a concern within certain CS elements of being “silenced/ignored”. > > (The same clarification would need to be made if the role is perceived as being more of an “honest broker”—i.e. the question being, particularly on the CS side, how inclusive of all CS interests/voices is the “brokerage” committed/able to be. > > Perhaps some clarification is in order here either from yourself in how you perceive the role, or from Ian or Sala on how they presented the role (and perceive it from a CS perspective). > > (I should also possibly add here that a significant number of those active in the Community Informatics community would, by their background, qualifications, experience and current activities qualify as being “techies” of one sort or another. Whether they would qualify as being members of the “Technical Community” (TC) under what I understand to be the criteria for inclusion within the TC as currently defined by the formal TC structures I’m not sure, as their orientation tends to be towards technical design and fabrication in support of social/digital inclusion and social justice.) > > Best to all, > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky > Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:04 AM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons > > Hi, Ian, > > Sala and I talked while we were both in Buenos Aires. Perhaps I can clarify my sense of what she may have been proposing. > > There is at the moment somewhat of a gulf between the technical community and the list(s) used by the proclaimed representatives of civil society. Sometimes such differences of opinion, as well as fact, can be resoled rather quickly if they are discussed directly by people on both sides of the issue, rather than being left to fester and feed growing suspicion and/or discontent. I think that Sala thought that having some announced or implied line of communication, clearly non-exclusive, might be helpful at times. I thought so, too. > > Having seen little response from anyone on this list, perhaps the idea isn't welcome in the more formalized sense in which it has been presented, and I can understand that. I think that perhaps I could be more active from time to time in the discussions that occur, and that might help to bridge some differences between the communities. Although I consider myself more technical in the context of Internet governance discussions, I do have roots in development activities that are quite consistent with some of the expressions of opinion posted to this and similar lists. > > George > <> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 24 12:55:45 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 18:55:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> <8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp> <52741740-24C3-477B-9BDC-A5BBA60ADCDC@glocom.ac.jp> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: To be clear: my understanding is that the statement that CSOs did endorse a set of principles produced within the OECD was challenged. It seems to me - and, unless I misinterpret the relevant messages, confirmed inter alia by Jeremy and Wolfgang - that a number of CSOs did indeed endorse a set of OECD principles which was acceptable to them. Again if I understand correctly, the point was not on the substance of such principles but on the legitimacy of policy-making done within "restricted" environments, especially when such principles / policies have ambitions of broader adoption; as well as, relatedly, on the approach to be taken towards broader settings. Please note that I'm not taking a position either on the OECD principles or on the related debate re: broader settings. P.S. I would not be so sure that people outside of the rather small IG circle (which are, according to some, stakeholders as well) are so clear on the details of who signed what, when and for which reason. On Sunday, November 24, 2013, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Again: The two principles which did not get a CISAC endorsement was IPR > and intermediarities. The opposition of CISAC to the two principles was ere > outspoken but ignored by an article in the Washington Post by David > Weitzer. This was corrected later when CISAC reconfirmed that it had its > own position and did not change it. In contrary, as the statement - > re-distributed by Andrea - says clearly, CISAC expected a continuation of > the debate around the two controvrsial principles with the aim to improve > the lanague and to make it acceptable to civil society. This OECD debate > did influence also the final stage of the elaboration of the Council of > Europe principles - which was negotiated in parallel. In the COE we avoided > controversial OECD language and got the full endorsement by all parties. > > w > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von > Adam Peake > Gesendet: So 24.11.2013 15:07 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Andrea Glorioso > Cc: parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt; <, > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >, > Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of > India to the WGEC > > I think we know what was endorsed and what wasn't. Please, just read the > documents, it's pretty clear. > > Adam > > > > On Nov 24, 2013, at 10:51 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > > As far as I understood when I used to follow this process, CSISAC did > support a modified version of these principles. I'm happy to stand > corrected by those who know more. > > > > http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php > > > > CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy > Making > > In a press release published on 19 December 2011, the CSISAC welcomes > the Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making adoped by the > OECD Council on 13 December 2011, which reaffirms OECD commitment to a > free, open and inclusive Internet. > > > > Most critically, this Recommendation envisions a collaborative > decision-making process that is inclusive of civil society issues and > concerns, such as those expressed by CSISAC when it declined to support a > previous Communique resulting from the OECD High Level Meeting of June 2011. > > > > CSISAC looks forward to working with the OECD in order to develop the > Principles itemized in the December Recommendation in greater detail and in > a manner that promotes openness, is grounded in respect for human rights > and the rule of law, and strengthens the capacity to improve the quality of > life for all citizens. > > > > > > On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote: > > >> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to > add my 2 cents too! > > >> > > >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on > the basis of the intellectual property rights provision. > > >> > > > > > > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them. > > > > > > > > > No Parminder, you're wrong. Civil society (CSISAC: Civil Society > Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the OECD principles > on Internet policy making (June 2011 < > http://www.oecd.org/internet/innovation/48289796.pdf>) Read the document. > > > > No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive merit of > the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I only spoke > about their procedural aspects - like inclusiveness, multistakeholder > versus multilateral, etc . That these processes > > > > > > 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and > > > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , than some > of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP proposal. > > > > > > And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with this > particular problem of global Internet governance. As for instance we are > fond of regularly writing to ITU about its processes, and have even started > to speak against proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model > which was one of the most participatory of processes that I have ever seen. > > > > > > Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above problem > of global governance - something which is a constant refrain in most > discussions of global governance in the South . How can we simply dismiss > this concern. > > > > > > Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet > policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to be > this December). As they renew their mandate, I propose that we write to > them, that > > > > > > 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and other > regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have implications > across the globe, to ensure global democracy. > > > 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy frameworks > on other countries - if they indeed think/ know that a particular Internet > policy issue is of a global dimension they should from the start itself > take it up at a global forum and accordingly develop policies regarding it . > > > 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same principles > of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for global Internet policy > related bodies. In this regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of > different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, > and whether they are same or different than what they > >> Development > House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: > andrewpuddephatt > > >> gp-digital.org > > >> > > >> From: parminder [ > > >> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net > > >> ] > > >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38 > > >> To: Andrew Puddephatt > > >> Cc: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > > >> , > > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government > of India to the WGEC > > >> > > >> Andrew > > >> > > >> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not > quite sure that is a good thing to do. > > >> > > >> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings > of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them > directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation > which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people > need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious > personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group > responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let > pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to > present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the > issue. > > >> > > >> my responses below... > > >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > >> > > >> I don't normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel > > >> > > >> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who > are engaging in it.... > > >> > > >> > > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.go -- -- 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com Sun Nov 24 13:29:22 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 13:29:22 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High-Level Panel Organizes to Address Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> References: <5289763F.3010601@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <80B54730-919D-4D14-8EDE-E059EF2297A1@gmail.com> Jeremy, I can understand your feeling, although I don't agree with your point. I think you're assuming that if you don't have a equilibrated balance of vocal forces that represent UN-defined stakeholder groups in a group (in every group?) that the group lacks legitimacy. I think that is a view based on antagonistic relationships between groups, and that it does not represent reality. See my long post to the list of a few hours ago. I've reviewed the list of panelists, and I see names of people who support a multiplicity of goals, including those expressed by the representatives of civil society in the vocal civil society groups within the multi-stakeholder framework. Furthermore, this panel is only one of the sources of information and opinions that will go into the Internet governance discussions, both for the Brazil meeting and for the longer term. I think that it would be more constructive for members of stakeholder groups to stress the end goals that they are for, and work with other representatives to seriously address agreements and differences, rather than to express negativity regarding process. I agree with the sentiments in your last sentence below. Let's focus on substantive issues. George On Nov 17, 2013, at 11:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 18/11/13 08:43, John Curran wrote: >> A high-level panel has been organized to consider the issues surrounding global Internet cooperation - >> >> "The Panel plans to release a high-level report in early 2014 for public comment. The report will include principles for global Internet cooperation, proposed frameworks for such cooperation and a roadmap for future Internet governance challenges." >> >> > > So it seems that ICANN has taken it upon itself to select the civil society representatives for the High Level Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation, which is what became of its 5th panel on Internet evolution. Previously Fadi had claimed that the fate of the 5th panel would be a decision for (what is now) the 1net dialogue, but evidently this was just more bluff. > > The civil society representatives that ICANN helpful chose on our behalf do not include the most expert names on Internet governance evolution. And meanwhile ISOC is "representing" civil society in other processes such as in the UNGA draft resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age. The technical community, supported by its hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, is eating broader civil society alive. > > We are being completely left behind while we are dithering over questions about whether to send the letter nominating our representatives to the Brazil meeting, and whether our mailing list should be open or closed. It is absolutely imperative now that we put internal process issues on hold, and focus on urgent substantive issues. > > Will post something more practical about all this to the new (though now already mis-named) "summit" list. > > > -- > 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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 24 13:41:44 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 10:41:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0b2401cee944$d3877180$7a965480$@gmail.com> Thanks George for a very sober, serious, insightful and dare I say generous piece. And there is little there that I disagree with including your overall aspirations for and comments on civil society. There are however, two issue themes that aren`t included in your discussion which come from two separate pieces of my own personal ecology in these matters that I feel have to be addressed if we are to get to the space that you are urging us toward. The first is that you don`t mention Snowden or what we have learned (or perhaps for some, found to be confirmed) through his actions. What we have seen in the starkest of terms in the Snowden documents is how important `control` over the Internet is seen in some quarters, and to what lengths those quarters and presumably others will go to ensure their `dominance` in matters having to do with how the Internet is deployed and used. Your technical community colleagues have characterized this as an ``attack`` on the Internet. From my perspective I see it as a full-on attempt to subvert the Internet in support of certain interests-and at this point it is unclear whether those interests are national security, national strategic, economic, political or some seamless integration of all of these. Among the most damaging outcomes from Snowden is a general breakdown in trust (or confirmation of the reasons for an on-going lack of trust) concerning I would say, all matters having to do with the core elements of the Internet of which certainly, Internet governance is one. Again your technical community colleagues well recognize this development (as of course does the Business Community) and the extremely corrosive and destructive elements that this lack of trust has introduced into what had previously been on-going collaborative relationships of all sorts with respect to Internet related activities. This lack of trust is certainly no less in Civil Society (and dare I say no less warranted) than for the other stakeholder groups and given the lack of normative coherence and even of a shared self- definition that we witness in Civil Society discussions on a daily basis it is perhaps even more explicable for CS, even if no less damaging. I don`t know what to do about this. Perhaps given the lack of resources for facilitating the kinds of (generally face to face and purpose driven) encounters in neutral disinterested spaces that are usually involved in `trust building` perhaps nothing can be done, but I do know that not facing the issue of trust directly and recognizing it in its full (and very ugly) reality means I think that it is more or less impossible to go forward in the ways that you are not unreasonably suggesting. The second issue that I would want to add to your commentary is a different one and comes from quite a different background. Many here began this particular odyssey in relation one way or another to WSIS. And certainly for me working in the grassroots use and among grassroots users of ICTs, WSIS was the doorway into these broader Internet Governance concerns. Notably, many in CS see WSIS as a significant success and one whose gains they currently appear reluctant to put in jeopardy by re-opening those discussions. I see it rather differently in that for me WSIS was largely a continuation of the pattern of top-down processes (the DotForce, the ICT4D Task Force etc.etc.) trying to solve ICT for Development issues without giving those most directly involved a chance to participate and provide their own insight into these matters. Few (if any) of the organizations (including it must be said the CS organizations) most directly involved with WSIS were in fact, in a position to give voice to the concerns of the grassroots users or activists/practitioners and unfortunately the train of failed ICT4D policies and programs (and more recently the quite evident donor fatigue with these failed programs) is a direct result. I believe even my first intervention into the IG discussion space articulated much of the above and very very regrettably I see little if any, progress having been made in the activities and interventions which have followed. Rather I see the matters which would be of greatest interest to grassroots users and communities perhaps characterized best through the term ``Internet Justice*`` derided, marginalized and ignored; even dare I say, to the extent that a number of CS groups appear to be opposing a revisiting of WSIS specifically because issues relating to Internet Justice might be introduced including by the G77. I think it would be very desirable for CS broadly to move in the directions indicated in George`s piece below but only if done in full recognition, awareness and responsiveness to the issues that I have just attempted to articulate. Best, Mike *Notably the term ``Internet Justice`` follows on from our Environmental CS colleagues who are now characterizing much of their concerns under the rubric of ``Environmental Justice``. From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 8:59 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Peter Ian; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Subject: Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment All, Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated. I'm suggesting that we should modify both the words and concept of Sala's suggestions and my response. Let's not think of doing anything formal; I think that both ends would balk at that, and for good reason. Instead, I'll just be somewhat more active on this list, and if anything comes up with respect to the technical community that I can clarify or help with on an informal and personal basis, I'll try to do that. So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if any of them resonate with any of you. First, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns. As I recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits. The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize. Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined. Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered. Second, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood. At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels. In order to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating about them. That function may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long term, or both. In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it is extremely important. Third, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating groups of ideas. A couple of examples illustrate the point. To the extent that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage their participation. Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on inter-stakeholder group separation. Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, I conclude that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects of that approach. This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I realize that what I have written, and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas that I think may be useful. The more nuanced discussion can and will come later. Your comments are welcome. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Nov 23, 2013, at 1:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: Thanks George and it is a potentially interesting proposition. But I must say that I'm unclear as to precisely what role is being suggested here. If the role is to attempt to frame the diversity of voices being articulated in civil society (in my case including those of the community informatics community for example) in a manner in which it can be more readily understood/assimilated/responded to by the technical community I think that is very useful. If it is, on the other hand, to act as a more or less "authoritative"/designated "filter" of communications/voices from Civil Society to the Technical Community then I can see quite considerable difficulty and controversy resulting, if nothing else, from a concern within certain CS elements of being "silenced/ignored". (The same clarification would need to be made if the role is perceived as being more of an "honest broker"-i.e. the question being, particularly on the CS side, how inclusive of all CS interests/voices is the "brokerage" committed/able to be. Perhaps some clarification is in order here either from yourself in how you perceive the role, or from Ian or Sala on how they presented the role (and perceive it from a CS perspective). (I should also possibly add here that a significant number of those active in the Community Informatics community would, by their background, qualifications, experience and current activities qualify as being "techies" of one sort or another. Whether they would qualify as being members of the "Technical Community" (TC) under what I understand to be the criteria for inclusion within the TC as currently defined by the formal TC structures I'm not sure, as their orientation tends to be towards technical design and fabrication in support of social/digital inclusion and social justice.) Best to all, M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:04 AM To: Ian Peter Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons Hi, Ian, Sala and I talked while we were both in Buenos Aires. Perhaps I can clarify my sense of what she may have been proposing. There is at the moment somewhat of a gulf between the technical community and the list(s) used by the proclaimed representatives of civil society. Sometimes such differences of opinion, as well as fact, can be resoled rather quickly if they are discussed directly by people on both sides of the issue, rather than being left to fester and feed growing suspicion and/or discontent. I think that Sala thought that having some announced or implied line of communication, clearly non-exclusive, might be helpful at times. I thought so, too. Having seen little response from anyone on this list, perhaps the idea isn't welcome in the more formalized sense in which it has been presented, and I can understand that. I think that perhaps I could be more active from time to time in the discussions that occur, and that might help to bridge some differences between the communities. Although I consider myself more technical in the context of Internet governance discussions, I do have roots in development activities that are quite consistent with some of the expressions of opinion posted to this and similar lists. George <> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 24 16:54:13 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 03:24:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: <0b2401cee944$d3877180$7a965480$@gmail.com> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <0b2401cee944$d3877180$7a965480$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <879F3129-6679-4564-B5E3-6802E061D607@hserus.net> Mike, one of the times when I agree with you a lot, and ++1 to George's note below. Your perspective is valuable here because of a technical background and even more, experience in hands on ict4d in community informatics. But that makes you part of a relative minority in civil society that tends to frequent wsis. The technical community is cross border and not all of the members of that community either represent their employers, or are even from countries or employers where snowden would be relevant as a supposed negative factor to weigh against them, also, don't these disagreements and the steady erosion of engagement between the two communities (or parts of civil society) predate snowden, a lot? Even predate wsis to some minor extent though as you say wsis and petty arguments about time at the mike etc. as for Internet justice it sometimes means choosing battles you can gain consensus on to address first, that may lead to some worth, even highly important causes pushed on the back burner unless they get consensus from, and are advocated consistently, by organizations across stakeholder groups. --srs (iPad) > On 25-Nov-2013, at 0:11, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Thanks George for a very sober, serious, insightful and dare I say generous piece. And there is little there that I disagree with including your overall aspirations for and comments on civil society. > > There are however, two issue themes that aren`t included in your discussion which come from two separate pieces of my own personal ecology in these matters that I feel have to be addressed if we are to get to the space that you are urging us toward. > > The first is that you don`t mention Snowden or what we have learned (or perhaps for some, found to be confirmed) through his actions. What we have seen in the starkest of terms in the Snowden documents is how important `control` over the Internet is seen in some quarters, and to what lengths those quarters and presumably others will go to ensure their `dominance` in matters having to do with how the Internet is deployed and used. Your technical community colleagues have characterized this as an ``attack`` on the Internet. From my perspective I see it as a full-on attempt to subvert the Internet in support of certain interests—and at this point it is unclear whether those interests are national security, national strategic, economic, political or some seamless integration of all of these. > > Among the most damaging outcomes from Snowden is a general breakdown in trust (or confirmation of the reasons for an on-going lack of trust) concerning I would say, all matters having to do with the core elements of the Internet of which certainly, Internet governance is one. Again your technical community colleagues well recognize this development (as of course does the Business Community) and the extremely corrosive and destructive elements that this lack of trust has introduced into what had previously been on-going collaborative relationships of all sorts with respect to Internet related activities. This lack of trust is certainly no less in Civil Society (and dare I say no less warranted) than for the other stakeholder groups and given the lack of normative coherence and even of a shared self- definition that we witness in Civil Society discussions on a daily basis it is perhaps even more explicable for CS, even if no less damaging. > > I don`t know what to do about this. Perhaps given the lack of resources for facilitating the kinds of (generally face to face and purpose driven) encounters in neutral disinterested spaces that are usually involved in `trust building` perhaps nothing can be done, but I do know that not facing the issue of trust directly and recognizing it in its full (and very ugly) reality means I think that it is more or less impossible to go forward in the ways that you are not unreasonably suggesting. > > The second issue that I would want to add to your commentary is a different one and comes from quite a different background. Many here began this particular odyssey in relation one way or another to WSIS. And certainly for me working in the grassroots use and among grassroots users of ICTs, WSIS was the doorway into these broader Internet Governance concerns. > > Notably, many in CS see WSIS as a significant success and one whose gains they currently appear reluctant to put in jeopardy by re-opening those discussions. I see it rather differently in that for me WSIS was largely a continuation of the pattern of top-down processes (the DotForce, the ICT4D Task Force etc.etc.) trying to solve ICT for Development issues without giving those most directly involved a chance to participate and provide their own insight into these matters. Few (if any) of the organizations (including it must be said the CS organizations) most directly involved with WSIS were in fact, in a position to give voice to the concerns of the grassroots users or activists/practitioners and unfortunately the train of failed ICT4D policies and programs (and more recently the quite evident donor fatigue with these failed programs) is a direct result. > > I believe even my first intervention into the IG discussion space articulated much of the above and very very regrettably I see little if any, progress having been made in the activities and interventions which have followed. Rather I see the matters which would be of greatest interest to grassroots users and communities perhaps characterized best through the term ``Internet Justice*`` derided, marginalized and ignored; even dare I say, to the extent that a number of CS groups appear to be opposing a revisiting of WSIS specifically because issues relating to Internet Justice might be introduced including by the G77. > > I think it would be very desirable for CS broadly to move in the directions indicated in George`s piece below but only if done in full recognition, awareness and responsiveness to the issues that I have just attempted to articulate. > > Best, > > Mike > > *Notably the term ``Internet Justice`` follows on from our Environmental CS colleagues who are now characterizing much of their concerns under the rubric of ``Environmental Justice``. > > > > > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 8:59 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Peter Ian; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Subject: Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment > > All, > > Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated. > > I'm suggesting that we should modify both the words and concept of Sala's suggestions and my response. > > Let's not think of doing anything formal; I think that both ends would balk at that, and for good reason. Instead, I'll just be somewhat more active on this list, and if anything comes up with respect to the technical community that I can clarify or help with on an informal and personal basis, I'll try to do that. > > So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if any of them resonate with any of you. > > First, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns. As I recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits. > > The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize. Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined. Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered. > > Second, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood. At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels. In order to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating about them. That function may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long term, or both. > > In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it is extremely important. > > Third, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating groups of ideas. A couple of examples illustrate the point. To the extent that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage their participation. Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on inter-stakeholder group separation. > > Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. > > An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. > > Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, > > I conclude that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects of that approach. > > This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I realize that what I have written, and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas that I think may be useful. The more nuanced discussion can and will come later. > > Your comments are welcome. > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > On Nov 23, 2013, at 1:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > Thanks George and it is a potentially interesting proposition. > > But I must say that I’m unclear as to precisely what role is being suggested here. If the role is to attempt to frame the diversity of voices being articulated in civil society (in my case including those of the community informatics community for example) in a manner in which it can be more readily understood/assimilated/responded to by the technical community I think that is very useful. > > If it is, on the other hand, to act as a more or less “authoritative”/designated “filter” of communications/voices from Civil Society to the Technical Community then I can see quite considerable difficulty and controversy resulting, if nothing else, from a concern within certain CS elements of being “silenced/ignored”. > > (The same clarification would need to be made if the role is perceived as being more of an “honest broker”—i.e. the question being, particularly on the CS side, how inclusive of all CS interests/voices is the “brokerage” committed/able to be. > > Perhaps some clarification is in order here either from yourself in how you perceive the role, or from Ian or Sala on how they presented the role (and perceive it from a CS perspective). > > (I should also possibly add here that a significant number of those active in the Community Informatics community would, by their background, qualifications, experience and current activities qualify as being “techies” of one sort or another. Whether they would qualify as being members of the “Technical Community” (TC) under what I understand to be the criteria for inclusion within the TC as currently defined by the formal TC structures I’m not sure, as their orientation tends to be towards technical design and fabrication in support of social/digital inclusion and social justice.) > > Best to all, > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky > Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:04 AM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons > > Hi, Ian, > > Sala and I talked while we were both in Buenos Aires. Perhaps I can clarify my sense of what she may have been proposing. > > There is at the moment somewhat of a gulf between the technical community and the list(s) used by the proclaimed representatives of civil society. Sometimes such differences of opinion, as well as fact, can be resoled rather quickly if they are discussed directly by people on both sides of the issue, rather than being left to fester and feed growing suspicion and/or discontent. I think that Sala thought that having some announced or implied line of communication, clearly non-exclusive, might be helpful at times. I thought so, too. > > Having seen little response from anyone on this list, perhaps the idea isn't welcome in the more formalized sense in which it has been presented, and I can understand that. I think that perhaps I could be more active from time to time in the discussions that occur, and that might help to bridge some differences between the communities. Although I consider myself more technical in the context of Internet governance discussions, I do have roots in development activities that are quite consistent with some of the expressions of opinion posted to this and similar lists. > > George > > > <> > > > > <> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Sun Nov 24 17:00:19 2013 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 22:00:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Message-ID: IGC and Bestbits Listers I write to you to seek your views on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014. In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and ISOC-KE, and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and ISOC -Uganda, starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. RgdsGrace Below is the announcement made on the multiple lists. 1. Background to the African Union Convention on Cyber Security (AUCC) African Union (AU) convention (52 page document) seeks to intensify the fight against cybercrime across Africa in light of increase in cybercrime, and a lack of mastery of security risks by African countries. Further, that one challenge for African countries is lack of technological security adequate enough to prevent and effectively control technological and informational risks. As such “African States are in dire need of innovative criminal policy strategies that embody States, societal and technical responses to create a credible legal climate for cyber security”. The Convention establishes a framework for cybersecurity in Africa “through organisation of electronic transactions, protection of personal data, promotion of cyber security, e-governance and combating cybercrime” (Conceptual framework). 2. Division of the Convention Part 1 Electronic transactions Section I: Definition of terms Section II: Electronic Commerce (Fields of application of electronic commerce, Contractual responsibility of the electronic provider of goods and services). Section III: Publicity by electronic means. Section IV: Obligations in electronic form (Electronic contracts, Written matter in electronic form, Ensuring the security of electronic transactions). Part II PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION Section I: Definition Section II: Legal framework for personal data protection (Objectives of this Convention with respect to personal data, Scope of application of the Convention, Preliminary formalities for personal data processing). Section III: Institutional framework for protection of personal data (Status, composition or organization, Functions of the protection authority). Section IV: Obligations relating to the conditions governing the processing of personal data (basic principles governing the processing of personal data, Specific principles governing the processing of sensitive data, Interconnection of personal data files). Section V: The rights of the person whose personal data are to be processed (Right to information, Right of access, Right of opposition, Right of correction or suppression). Section VI: Obligations of the personal data processing official (Confidentiality obligations, Security obligations, Conservation obligations, Sustainability obligations). PART III – PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AND COMBATING CYBERCRIME Section 1: Terminology, National cyber security framework, Legislative measures, National cyber security system, National cyber security monitoring structures). Section II: Material penal law (Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies [Attack on, computerized data, Content related offenses], Adapting certain information and communication technologies offenses). Section II: Criminal liability for corporate persons (Adapting certain sanctions to the Information and Communication Technologies, Other penal sanctions, Procedural law, Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies). PART IV: COMMON AND FINAL PROVISIONS Section I: Monitoring mechanism Section II: Final responses The Proposed Discussion We have picked on articles that need clarity, and would request listers to kindly discuss them and provide recommendations where necessary. Also, where necessary, listers are encouraged to identify and share other articles that need clarifications that we may have left out. Day 1 Monday 25/ 11/2013 We begin with Part 1 on Electronic transactions and pick on four articles which we will discuss on Monday (25/11) and Tuesday (26/11). Section III: Publicity by electronic means Article I – 7: Without prejudice to Article I-4 any advertising action, irrespective of its form, accessible through online communication service, shall be clearly identified as such. It shall clearly identify the individual or corporate body on behalf of whom it is undertaken. Question: Should net anonymity be legislated? If so, what measures need to be or not be considered? Question: Should individuals or companies be obliged to reveal their identities and what are the implications? Article I – 8: The conditions governing the possibility of promotional offers as well as the conditions for participating in promotional competitions or games where such offers, competitions or games are electronically disseminated, shall be clearly spelt out and easily accessible. Question: Should an international (or should we call it regional) law legislate on promotional offers and competitions offered locally? Day 2 Tuesday 26/11/13 Article I – 9: Direct marketing through any form of indirect communication including messages forwarded with automatic message sender, facsimile or electronic mails in whatsoever form, using the particulars of an individual who has not given prior consent to receiving the said direct marketing through the means indicated, shall be prohibited by the member states of the African Union. Article I – 10: The provisions of Article I – 9 above notwithstanding, direct marketing prospection by electronic mails shall be permissible where: 1) The particulars of the addressee have been obtained directly from him/her, 2) The recipient has given consent to be contacted by the prospector partners 3) The direct prospection concerns similar products or services provided by the same individual or corporate body. Question: Is this a realistic way of dealing with spam? Article I – 27 Where the legislative provisions of Member States have not laid down other provisions, and where there is no valid agreement between the parties, the judge shall resolve proof related conflicts by determining by all possible means the most plausible claim regardless of the message base employed. Question: What is the meaning of this article and is it necessary? Some clarity needed! Day 3 Wednesday 27 /11/13 Today, we move onto PART II: PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION and will deal with three questions. Objectives of this Convention with respect to personal data Article II – 2: Each Member State of the African Union shall put in place a legal framework with a view to establishing a mechanism to combat breaches of private life likely to arise from the gathering, processing, transmission, storage and use of personal data. The mechanism so established shall ensure that any data processing, in whatsoever form, respects the freedoms and fundamental rights of physical persons while recognizing the prerogatives of the State, the rights of local communities and the target for which the businesses were established. Question: What is the relevance of this article? What are these state prerogatives? And given the increased interest of state surveillance, how can states balance respect of FOE while recognising state prerogatives? Article II-6, II-7, 11-8, II-11, II-12, II-13 refer to a Protection Authority which is meant to establish standards for data protection. Article II – 14 provides for each Member State of the African Union to establish an authority with responsibility to protect personal data. It shall be an independent administrative authority with the task of ensuring that the processing of personal data is conducted in accordance with domestic legislations. In article II-17 states that ‘Sworn agents may be invited to participate in audit missions in accordance with extant provisions in Member States of the African Union’. Question: Considering that this article seems to be tied to the Protection Authority, what is its relevance? And who is a ‘sworn agent?’ What should this authority look like in terms of its composition? Article II – 20: …Members of the protection authority shall not receive instructions from any authority in the exercise of their functions. Article II – 21: Member States are engaged to provide the national protection authority human, technical and financial resources necessary to accomplish their mission. Question: It appears that this Data Protection Authority is envisaged to be fully government supported. Therefore, should we be talking of its independence? In what way should this article be framed so that it ensures independence of the Authority? Article II – 28 to II-34 outlines six principles governing the processing of personal data namely: Consent and of legitimacy, Honesty, Objective, relevance and conservation of processed personal data, Accuracy, Transparency and Confidentiality and security of personal data. Under each of the specific principles, detailed explanation of how each should be undertaken is offered. Question: Is this explanation and detailing of how to undertake each necessary in an international (regional) law necessary or needed? Is this legislation overkill? Day 4 Thursdsay 28/11/2013 Part III Day 4 will focus on PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AND COMBATING CYBERCRIME Article III – 14: Harmonization 1) Member States have to undertake necessary measures to ensure that the legislative measures and / or regulations adopted to fight against cybercrime enhance the possibility of regional harmonization of these measures and respect the principle of double criminality. Question: What is the principle of double criminality here? Section II: Other penal sanctions Article III – 48 Each Member State of the African Union have to take necessary legislative measures to ensure that, in the case of conviction for an offense committed by means of digital communication facility, the competent jurisdiction or the judge handling the case gives a ruling imposing additional punishment. Question: What is the interpretation of additional punishment? Is this not granting of absolute powers to judges? Day Five 29/11/2013 This will be dedicated to any other issue(s)that listers may want to raise in regard to the Convention. Further, listers can go back to issues of any other day and discuss them here. Are there other articles that you would like to share that need clarification? What other issue(s) would you like to raise? References DRAFT AFRICAN UNION CONVENTION ON THE CONFIDENCE AND SECURITY IN CYBERSPACEhttp://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf http://daucc.wordpress.com/ http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/262/148/817/ http://daucc.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/paper-review-basic-drawbacks-of-the-draft-african-union-convention-on-the-confidence-and-security-in-cyberspace/ http://michaelmurungi.blogspot.com/2012/08/comments-on-draft-african-union.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 kichango at gmail.com Sun Nov 24 19:21:16 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:21:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: <879F3129-6679-4564-B5E3-6802E061D607@hserus.net> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <0b2401cee944$d3877180$7a965480$@gmail.com> <879F3129-6679-4564-B5E3-6802E061D607@hserus.net> Message-ID: All, Thank you George that your insightful piece and analysis, and the spirit of it all. My comment will be on the composition of the CS preceded with a few considerations about the evolution of the population of the WSIS-CS ecology (eco-nomy?) as reflected from participation in our discussions here. It is clear that the initial multistakeholder partition in the WSIS process (which was also associated with the positive idea that for the first time CS was being formally recognized as full participant in what would otherwise have been an intergovernmental process) followed by a lengthy transition/resolution of the core issues that emerged during that process has only and regrettably increased the silo effect. It has become basically a turf war. It would be very, very interesting to be able to study the evolution of this ecosystem through the composition of the population involved from 2003 prepcoms and Geneva summit to date. I suspect part of the increased demarcations may come from (this is an hypothesis) massive engagement of professional/organized CS in this specific space post-Geneva, which has kept increasing since and to the WCIT apex so far. I am certainly not implying this is a bad thing, but at the same time it may have heightened the questions of representation and legitimacy, and even brought them front and center, with the temptation to push back against the technical community, probably because, first, those are two distinct professions with different ways and cultures. In addition, the technical community (TC) is naturally positioned as internet professionals and have already been assuming some authority from their expertise in the workings of the internet, and as a result they might supposedly overshadow classical organized CS in their effort to find/open a space where they can discuss and advocate rights as they know how to, without technical issues (and dare I say other champions) getting in the way. I personally understood and learned a lot more from this list before Tunis when people with technical knowledge engaged more than since with remarkable shifts in the population of this ecosystem. Of course, advocacy need to be done on plain social values and norms as well, and it helps significantly to have experienced CS advocates involved in doing that. But I certainly do not see it as an overall gain if they or their style should exclusively take over the identity of this community (notwithstanding the fact that the community in question is called CS.) Speaking of which, we always have to remember that if CS means anything at all, then it is necessarily plural. It's not only the "rest of us" but it is also "most of us" on this earth. Based not on any conceptualization/ theorizing but on simple observation of the reality of this community of practice, CS encompasses at least 4 things/groups/categories of participants/"identities." 1. free citizens and internet users constitute a significant element of the CS 2. free citizens and internet users organized in social movements or into legal entities are part of CS 3. professionals involved in the existence and/or functioning of the "thing" (here the internet), a.k.a TC, are also part of CS 4. another category of professionals doing research and building up knowledge either on the "thing" itself or on its intersection with society, being able to inform policy with insights and evidence which research can best afford --in a nutshell, academics and other researchers by trade or profession. Again, I am drawing the above groups of participants simply based on my observation of what has been happening in this milieu and I do not pretend to say what ought to be (for instance, whether it would be legitimate or not to add another category or actors, but at least the above 4 have been involved and have earned their place under the CS banner.) The fact of calling some of them "professionals" does not imply any judgement, neither against them nor against the other participants (who most probably also are professionals in other fields or manners.) That designation simply relates to the field of the "thing" at hand or the social goals we as CS want to achieve about it. Also, the fact that some are organized and others are not, the fact that some have the privilege to be in job positions where they can spend a large amount of their working time to get better prepared and more effective at working on our collective concerns while others don't does not make them more legitimate CS than the others. So IMHO whenever we want to be representative or talk about (our) legitimacy not only would we be ill-advised to exclude any one of the above 4 categories, but we will be precisely less legitimate not to make a conscious effort to include in our selections participants who are generally recognized as elements from these groups. More specifically we have to guard ourselves from the drift which seems to be happening right now in my view, with the implication that CS is only organized CS (whether it includes professionals from research/academic institutions or not.) In that spirit I welcome the initiative that George is proposing, and look forward to welcoming an even more direct engagement between all groupings and elements of CS. Thanks, Mawaki -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder, DIGILEXIS Consulting http://www.digilexis.com m.chango at digilexis.com https://twitter.com/digilexis https://twitter.com/dig_mawaki Mobile: +225 4448 7764 Skype: digilexis On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Mike, one of the times when I agree with you a lot, and ++1 to George's > note below. > > Your perspective is valuable here because of a technical background and > even more, experience in hands on ict4d in community informatics. But that > makes you part of a relative minority in civil society that tends to > frequent wsis. > > The technical community is cross border and not all of the members of that > community either represent their employers, or are even from countries or > employers where snowden would be relevant as a supposed negative factor to > weigh against them, also, don't these disagreements and the steady erosion > of engagement between the two communities (or parts of civil society) > predate snowden, a lot? > > Even predate wsis to some minor extent though as you say wsis and petty > arguments about time at the mike etc. as for Internet justice it sometimes > means choosing battles you can gain consensus on to address first, that may > lead to some worth, even highly important causes pushed on the back burner > unless they get consensus from, and are advocated consistently, by > organizations across stakeholder groups. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 25-Nov-2013, at 0:11, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Thanks George for a very sober, serious, insightful and dare I say > generous piece. And there is little there that I disagree with including > your overall aspirations for and comments on civil society. > > > > There are however, two issue themes that aren`t included in your > discussion which come from two separate pieces of my own personal ecology > in these matters that I feel have to be addressed if we are to get to the > space that you are urging us toward. > > > > The first is that you don`t mention Snowden or what we have learned (or > perhaps for some, found to be confirmed) through his actions. What we have > seen in the starkest of terms in the Snowden documents is how important > `control` over the Internet is seen in some quarters, and to what lengths > those quarters and presumably others will go to ensure their `dominance` in > matters having to do with how the Internet is deployed and used. Your > technical community colleagues have characterized this as an ``attack`` on > the Internet. From my perspective I see it as a full-on attempt to subvert > the Internet in support of certain interests—and at this point it is > unclear whether those interests are national security, national strategic, > economic, political or some seamless integration of all of these. > > > > Among the most damaging outcomes from Snowden is a general breakdown in > trust (or confirmation of the reasons for an on-going lack of trust) > concerning I would say, all matters having to do with the core elements of > the Internet of which certainly, Internet governance is one. Again your > technical community colleagues well recognize this development (as of > course does the Business Community) and the extremely corrosive and > destructive elements that this lack of trust has introduced into what had > previously been on-going collaborative relationships of all sorts with > respect to Internet related activities. This lack of trust is certainly no > less in Civil Society (and dare I say no less warranted) than for the other > stakeholder groups and given the lack of normative coherence and even of a > shared self- definition that we witness in Civil Society discussions on a > daily basis it is perhaps even more explicable for CS, even if no less > damaging. > > > > I don`t know what to do about this. Perhaps given the lack of resources > for facilitating the kinds of (generally face to face and purpose driven) > encounters in neutral disinterested spaces that are usually involved in > `trust building` perhaps nothing can be done, but I do know that not facing > the issue of trust directly and recognizing it in its full (and very ugly) > reality means I think that it is more or less impossible to go forward in > the ways that you are not unreasonably suggesting. > > > > The second issue that I would want to add to your commentary is a > different one and comes from quite a different background. Many here began > this particular odyssey in relation one way or another to WSIS. And > certainly for me working in the grassroots use and among grassroots users > of ICTs, WSIS was the doorway into these broader Internet Governance > concerns. > > > > Notably, many in CS see WSIS as a significant success and one whose gains > they currently appear reluctant to put in jeopardy by re-opening those > discussions. I see it rather differently in that for me WSIS was largely a > continuation of the pattern of top-down processes (the DotForce, the ICT4D > Task Force etc.etc.) trying to solve ICT for Development issues without > giving those most directly involved a chance to participate and provide > their own insight into these matters. Few (if any) of the organizations > (including it must be said the CS organizations) most directly involved > with WSIS were in fact, in a position to give voice to the concerns of the > grassroots users or activists/practitioners and unfortunately the train of > failed ICT4D policies and programs (and more recently the quite evident > donor fatigue with these failed programs) is a direct result. > > > > I believe even my first intervention into the IG discussion space > articulated much of the above and very very regrettably I see little if > any, progress having been made in the activities and interventions which > have followed. Rather I see the matters which would be of greatest > interest to grassroots users and communities perhaps characterized best > through the term ``Internet Justice*`` derided, marginalized and ignored; > even dare I say, to the extent that a number of CS groups appear to be > opposing a revisiting of WSIS specifically because issues relating to > Internet Justice might be introduced including by the G77. > > > > I think it would be very desirable for CS broadly to move in the > directions indicated in George`s piece below but only if done in full > recognition, awareness and responsiveness to the issues that I have just > attempted to articulate. > > > > Best, > > > > Mike > > > > *Notably the term ``Internet Justice`` follows on from our Environmental > CS colleagues who are now characterizing much of their concerns under the > rubric of ``Environmental Justice``. > > > > > > > > > > *From:* George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] > > *Sent:* Sunday, November 24, 2013 8:59 AM > *To:* michael gurstein > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Peter Ian; Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a > multi-stakeholder environment > > > > All, > > > > *Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions > and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated.* > > > > I'm suggesting that we should modify both the words and concept of Sala's > suggestions and my response. > > > > Let's not think of doing anything formal; I think that both ends would > balk at that, and for good reason. Instead, I'll just be somewhat more > active on this list, and if anything comes up with respect to the technical > community that I can clarify or help with on an informal and personal > basis, I'll try to do that. > > > > So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if > any of them resonate with any of you. > > > > *First*, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder > approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet > technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent > classical civil society concerns. As I recall in the 1990s, these > communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet > encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to > explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits. > > > > The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS > process, caused informal differences to formalize. Issues of > representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes > competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while > informal discussion gradually declined. Polarization of opinion grew as > willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree > suffered. > > > > *Second*, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical > community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the > MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood. At this point in its > evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels. In order > to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with > Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good > technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a > detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the Internet > technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand > such effects and to inform those deliberating about them. That function > may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and > suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, > either short or long term, or both. > > > > In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it > is extremely important. > > > > *Third*, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism > appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating > groups of ideas. A couple of examples illustrate the point. To the extent > that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well > to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of > civil society benefit and should encourage their participation. > Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are > people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent > with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. > The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that > minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding > issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of > recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on > inter-stakeholder group separation. > > > > *Fourth*, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil > society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by > the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing > organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the > importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent > civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to > populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are > generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back > against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. > Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that > tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging > groups instead of being siloed. > > > > An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in > the world and remove government involvement, the private sector > involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a > phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains > fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. > > > > Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder > group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. > Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector > organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. > Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute > "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in > the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large > parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as > we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is > likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as > self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. > This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are > really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive > relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the > underlying reality, > > > > *I conclude* that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be > an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative > externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to assess the > multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is retained as an > organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative > effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects > of that approach. > > > > This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me > to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic > relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and > technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank > you for taking the time to read it. I realize that what I have written, > and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have > presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas > that I think may be useful. The more nuanced discussion can and will come > later. > > > > Your comments are welcome. > > > > George > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > On Nov 23, 2013, at 1:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > Thanks George and it is a potentially interesting proposition. > > > > But I must say that I’m unclear as to precisely what role is being > suggested here. If the role is to attempt to frame the diversity of voices > being articulated in civil society (in my case including those of the > community informatics community for example) in a manner in which it can be > more readily understood/assimilated/responded to by the technical community > I think that is very useful. > > > > If it is, on the other hand, to act as a more or less > “authoritative”/designated “filter” of communications/voices from Civil > Society to the Technical Community then I can see quite considerable > difficulty and controversy resulting, if nothing else, from a concern > within certain CS elements of being “silenced/ignored”. > > > > (The same clarification would need to be made if the role is perceived as > being more of an “honest broker”—i.e. the question being, particularly on > the CS side, how inclusive of all CS interests/voices is the “brokerage” > committed/able to be. > > > > Perhaps some clarification is in order here either from yourself in how > you perceive the role, or from Ian or Sala on how they presented the role > (and perceive it from a CS perspective). > > > > (I should also possibly add here that a significant number of those active > in the Community Informatics community would, by their background, > qualifications, experience and current activities qualify as being > “techies” of one sort or another. Whether they would qualify as being > members of the “Technical Community” (TC) under what I understand to be the > criteria for inclusion within the TC as currently defined by the formal TC > structures I’m not sure, as their orientation tends to be towards technical > design and fabrication in support of social/digital inclusion and social > justice.) > > > > Best to all, > > > > M > > > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > ] *On Behalf Of *George Sadowsky > *Sent:* Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:04 AM > *To:* Ian Peter > *Cc:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and > need for IGC and civil society Liaisons > > > > Hi, Ian, > > > > Sala and I talked while we were both in Buenos Aires. Perhaps I can > clarify my sense of what she may have been proposing. > > > > There is at the moment somewhat of a gulf between the technical community > and the list(s) used by the proclaimed representatives of civil society. > Sometimes such differences of opinion, as well as fact, can be resoled > rather quickly if they are discussed directly by people on both sides of > the issue, rather than being left to fester and feed growing suspicion > and/or discontent. I think that Sala thought that having some announced or > implied line of communication, clearly non-exclusive, might be helpful at > times. I thought so, too. > > > > Having seen little response from anyone on this list, perhaps the idea > isn't welcome in the more formalized sense in which it has been presented, > and I can understand that. I think that perhaps I could be more active > from time to time in the discussions that occur, and that might help to > bridge some differences between the communities. Although I consider > myself more technical in the context of Internet governance discussions, I > do have roots in development activities that are quite consistent with > some of the expressions of opinion posted to this and similar lists. > > > > George > > > > > > <> > > > > > > <> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 24 20:28:01 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 06:58:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Message-ID: Hi Grace About I8 to I10 as I have worked extensively on spam at a technical and policy level since the late 90s I8 : This is a convention and not an international law. It provides a criterion that nations in the American will commit to harmonize their current (or more likely proposed, in large parts of Africa) to be uniform on this and other provisions. In this case, it advocates transparency in direct marketing offers which is a best practice I9 : this is an optin law, which is respectful of user privacy and doesn't allow the sending of unsolicited bulk email, which is the canonical definition of spam. This should not restrict itself to marketing but cover other sorts of bulk mail sent by other organizations or individuals. The law should be content neutral and cover all forms of unsolicited bulk email rather than just marketing mail. I10 : this is a standard prior business relationship exception to make compliance simpler The articles also need to additionally cover criminal forms of spam as the 419 scam, phishing etc. They additionally need to specify penalties both for the organization that commissioned the spam and the marketing agency they contracted with to actually send the spam. Specific language that would be appropriate is in the Australian spam act of 2003 and in the proposed Canadian antispam law, both of which were drafted after open, consultative and multistakeholder processes in the respective countries, including inputs from respected privacy groups. Before that, data protection and net anonymity have to be carefully balanced to log data but retain it under strict controls and regulation of how it can be used (in accordance with privacy regulations). If you legislate blanket anonymity then scam artists and cybercriminals will extensively abuse it to remain undetected. These are a first set of thoughts --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Grace Githaiga" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 3:30 AM IGC and Bestbits Listers I write to you to seek your views on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014. In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and ISOC-KE, and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and ISOC -Uganda, starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. RgdsGrace Below is the announcement made on the multiple lists. 1. Background to the African Union Convention on Cyber Security (AUCC) African Union (AU) convention (52 page document) seeks to intensify the fight against cybercrime across Africa in light of increase in cybercrime, and a lack of mastery of security risks by African countries. Further, that one challenge for African countries is lack of technological security adequate enough to prevent and effectively control technological and informational risks. As such “African States are in dire need of innovative criminal policy strategies that embody States, societal and technical responses to create a credible legal climate for cyber security”. The Convention establishes a framework for cybersecurity in Africa “through organisation of electronic transactions, protection of personal data, promotion of cyber security, e-governance and combating cybercrime” (Conceptual framework). 2. Division of the Convention Part 1 Electronic transactions Section I: Definition of terms Section II: Electronic Commerce (Fields of application of electronic commerce, Contractual responsibility of the electronic provider of goods and services). Section III: Publicity by electronic means. Section IV: Obligations in electronic form (Electronic contracts, Written matter in electronic form, Ensuring the security of electronic transactions). Part II PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION Section I: Definition Section II: Legal framework for personal data protection (Objectives of this Convention with respect to personal data, Scope of application of the Convention, Preliminary formalities for personal data processing). Section III: Institutional framework for protection of personal data (Status, composition or organization, Functions of the protection authority). Section IV: Obligations relating to the conditions governing the processing of personal data (basic principles governing the processing of personal data, Specific principles governing the processing of sensitive data, Interconnection of personal data files). Section V: The rights of the person whose personal data are to be processed (Right to information, Right of access, Right of opposition, Right of correction or suppression). Section VI: Obligations of the personal data processing official (Confidentiality obligations, Security obligations, Conservation obligations, Sustainability obligations). PART III – PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AND COMBATING CYBERCRIME Section 1: Terminology, National cyber security framework, Legislative measures, National cyber security system, National cyber security monitoring structures). Section II: Material penal law (Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies [Attack on, computerized data, Content related offenses], Adapting certain information and communication technologies offenses). Section II: Criminal liability for corporate persons (Adapting certain sanctions to the Information and Communication Technologies, Other penal sanctions, Procedural law, Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies). PART IV: COMMON AND FINAL PROVISIONS Section I: Monitoring mechanism Section II: Final responses The Proposed Discussion We have picked on articles that need clarity, and would request listers to kindly discuss them and provide recommendations where necessary. Also, where necessary, listers are encouraged to identify and share other articles that need clarifications that we may have left out. Day 1 Monday 25/ 11/2013 We begin with Part 1 on Electronic transactions and pick on four articles which we will discuss on Monday (25/11) and Tuesday (26/11). Section III: Publicity by electronic means Article I – 7: Without prejudice to Article I-4 any advertising action, irrespective of its form, accessible through online communication service, shall be clearly identified as such. It shall clearly identify the individual or corporate body on behalf of whom it is undertaken. Question: Should net anonymity be legislated? If so, what measures need to be or not be considered? Question: Should individuals or companies be obliged to reveal their identities and what are the implications? Article I – 8: The conditions governing the possibility of promotional offers as well as the conditions for participating in promotional competitions or games where such offers, competitions or games are electronically disseminated, shall be clearly spelt out and easily accessible. Question: Should an international (or should we call it regional) law legislate on promotional offers and competitions offered locally? Day 2 Tuesday 26/11/13 Article I – 9: Direct marketing through any form of indirect communication including messages forwarded with automatic message sender, facsimile or electronic mails in whatsoever form, using the particulars of an individual who has not given prior consent to receiving the said direct marketing through the means indicated, shall be prohibited by the member states of the African Union. Article I – 10: The provisions of Article I – 9 above notwithstanding, direct marketing prospection by electronic mails shall be permissible where: 1) The particulars of the addressee have been obtained directly from him/her, 2) The recipient has given consent to be contacted by the prospector partners 3) The direct prospection concerns similar products or services provided by the same individual or corporate body. Question: Is this a realistic way of dealing with spam? Article I – 27 Where the legislative provisions of Member States have not laid down other provisions, and where there is no valid agreement between the parties, the judge shall resolve proof related conflicts by determining by all possible means the most plausible claim regardless of the message base employed. Question: What is the meaning of this article and is it necessary? Some clarity needed! Day 3 Wednesday 27 /11/13 Today, we move onto PART II: PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION and will deal with three questions. Objectives of this Convention with respect to personal data Article II – 2: Each Member State of the African Union shall put in place a legal framework with a view to establishing a mechanism to combat breaches of private life likely to arise from the gathering, processing, transmission, storage and use of personal data. The mechanism so established shall ensure that any data processing, in whatsoever form, respects the freedoms and fundamental rights of physical persons while recognizing the prerogatives of the State, the rights of local communities and the target for which the businesses were established. Question: What is the relevance of this article? What are these state prerogatives? And given the increased interest of state surveillance, how can states balance respect of FOE while recognising state prerogatives? Article II-6, II-7, 11-8, II-11, II-12, II-13 refer to a Protection Authority which is meant to establish standards for data protection. Article II – 14 provides for each Member State of the African Union to establish an authority with responsibility to protect personal data. It shall be an independent administrative authority with the task of ensuring that the processing of personal data is conducted in accordance with domestic legislations. In article II-17 states that ‘Sworn agents may be invited to participate in audit missions in accordance with extant provisions in Member States of the African Union’. Question: Considering that this article seems to be tied to the Protection Authority, what is its relevance? And who is a ‘sworn agent?’ What should this authority look like in terms of its composition? Article II – 20: …Members of the protection authority shall not receive instructions from any authority in the exercise of their functions. Article II – 21: Member States are engaged to provide the national protection authority human, technical and financial resources necessary to accomplish their mission. Question: It appears that this Data Protection Authority is envisaged to be fully government supported. Therefore, should we be talking of its independence? In what way should this article be framed so that it ensures independence of the Authority? Article II – 28 to II-34 outlines six principles governing the processing of personal data namely: Consent and of legitimacy, Honesty, Objective, relevance and conservation of processed personal data, Accuracy, Transparency and Confidentiality and security of personal data. Under each of the specific principles, detailed explanation of how each should be undertaken is offered. Question: Is this explanation and detailing of how to undertake each necessary in an international (regional) law necessary or needed? Is this legislation overkill? Day 4 Thursdsay 28/11/2013 Part III Day 4 will focus on PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AND COMBATING CYBERCRIME Article III – 14: Harmonization 1) Member States have to undertake necessary measures to ensure that the legislative measures and / or regulations adopted to fight against cybercrime enhance the possibility of regional harmonization of these measures and respect the principle of double criminality. Question: What is the principle of double criminality here? Section II: Other penal sanctions Article III – 48 Each Member State of the African Union have to take necessary legislative measures to ensure that, in the case of conviction for an offense committed by means of digital communication facility, the competent jurisdiction or the judge handling the case gives a ruling imposing additional punishment. Question: What is the interpretation of additional punishment? Is this not granting of absolute powers to judges? Day Five 29/11/2013 This will be dedicated to any other issue(s)that listers may want to raise in regard to the Convention. Further, listers can go back to issues of any other day and discuss them here. Are there other articles that you would like to share that need clarification? What other issue(s) would you like to raise? References DRAFT AFRICAN UNION CONVENTION ON THE CONFIDENCE AND SECURITY IN CYBERSPACEhttp://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf http://daucc.wordpress.com/ http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/262/148/817/ http://daucc.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/paper-review-basic-drawbacks-of-the-draft-african-union-convention-on-the-confidence-and-security-in-cyberspace/ http://michaelmurungi.blogspot.com/2012/08/comments-on-draft-african-union.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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 24 22:08:51 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:38:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Inside America's Plan to Kill Online Privacy Rights Everywhere In-Reply-To: <52925BF7.2070605@bluewin.ch> References: <52925BF7.2070605@bluewin.ch> Message-ID: <5292BF43.1040705@itforchange.net> from foreign policy Exclusive: Inside America's Plan to Kill Online Privacy Rights Everywhere Posted By Colum Lynch Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 6:10 PM Share The United States and its key intelligence allies are quietly working behind the scenes to kneecap a mounting movement in the United Nations to promote a universal human right to online privacy, according to diplomatic sources and an internal American government document obtained by /The Cable/. The diplomatic battle is playing out in an obscure U.N. General Assembly committee that is considering a proposal by Brazil and Germany to place constraints on unchecked internet surveillance by the National Security Agency and other foreign intelligence services. American representatives have made it clear that they won't tolerate such checks on their global surveillance network. The stakes are high, particularly in Washington -- which is seeking to contain an international backlash against NSA spying -- and in Brasilia, where Brazilian President Dilma Roussef is personally involved in monitoring the U.N. negotiations. The Brazilian and German initiative seeks to apply the right to privacy, which is enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to online communications. Their proposal, first revealed by /The Cable/ , affirms a "right to privacy that is not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence." It notes that while public safety may "justify the gathering and protection of certain sensitive information," nations "must ensure full compliance" with international human rights laws. A final version the text is scheduled to be presented to U.N. members on Wednesday evening and the resolution is expected to be adopted next week. A draft of the resolution, which was obtained by /The Cable/, calls on states to "to respect and protect the right to privacy," asserting that the "same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy." It also requests the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, present the U.N. General Assembly next year with a report on the protection and promotion of the right to privacy, a provision that will ensure the issue remains on the front burner. More FP CoverageTHE NSA LEAKS * Meet the Spies Doing the NSA's Dirty Work * Spy Copters, Lasers, and Break-In Teams * The FBI is Helping the NSA Spy, but Senators Don't Want to Know About It Publicly, U.S. representatives say they're open to an affirmation of privacy rights. "The United States takes very seriously our international legal obligations, including those under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," Kurtis Cooper, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said in an email. "We have been actively and constructively negotiating to ensure that the resolution promotes human rights and is consistent with those obligations." But privately, American diplomats are pushing hard to kill a provision of the Brazilian and German draft which states that "extraterritorial surveillance" and mass interception of communications, personal information, and metadata may constitute a violation of human rights. The United States and its allies, according to diplomats, outside observers, and documents, contend that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not apply to foreign espionage. In recent days, the United States circulated to its allies a confidential paper highlighting American objectives in the negotiations, "Right to Privacy in the Digital Age -- U.S. Redlines." It calls for changing the Brazilian and German text so "that references to privacy rights are referring explicitly to States' obligations under ICCPR and remove suggestion that such obligations apply extraterritorially." In other words: America wants to make sure it preserves the right to spy overseas. The U.S. paper also calls on governments to promote amendments that would weaken Brazil's and Germany's contention that some "highly intrusive" acts of online espionage may constitute a violation of freedom of expression. Instead, the United States wants to limit the focus to /illegal/surveillance -- which the American government claims it never, ever does. Collecting information on tens of millions of people around the world is perfectly acceptable, the Obama administration has repeatedly said. It's authorized by U.S. statute, overseen by Congress, and approved by American courts. "Recall that the USG's [U.S. government's] collection activities that have been disclosed are lawful collections done in a manner protective of privacy rights," the paper states. "So a paragraph expressing concern about illegal surveillance is one with which we would agree." The privacy resolution, like most General Assembly decisions, is neither legally binding nor enforceable by any international court. But international lawyers say it is important because it creates the basis for an international consensus -- referred to as "soft law" -- that over time will make it harder and harder for the United States to argue that its mass collection of foreigners' data is lawful and in conformity with human rights norms. "They want to be able to say ‘we haven't broken the law, we're not breaking the law, and we won't break the law,'" said Dinah PoKempner, the general counsel for Human Rights Watch, who has been tracking the negotiations. The United States, she added, wants to be able to maintain that "we have the freedom to scoop up anything we want through the massive surveillance of foreigners because we have no legal obligations." The United States negotiators have been pressing their case behind the scenes, raising concerns that the assertion of extraterritorial human rights could constrain America's effort to go after international terrorists. But Washington has remained relatively muted about their concerns in the U.N. negotiating sessions. According to one diplomat, "the United States has been very much in the backseat," leaving it to its allies, Australia, Britain, and Canada, to take the lead. There is no extraterritorial obligation on states "to comply with human rights," explained one diplomat who supports the U.S. position. "The obligation is on states to uphold the human rights of citizens within their territory and areas of their jurisdictions." The position, according to Jamil Dakwar, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Human Rights Program, has little international backing. The International Court of Justice, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, and the European Court have all asserted that states do have an obligation to comply with human rights laws beyond their own borders, he noted. "Governments do have obligation beyond their territories," said Dakwar, particularly in situations, like the Guantanamo Bay detention center, where the United States exercises "effective control" over the lives of the detainees. Both PoKempner and Dakwar suggested that courts may also judge that the U.S. dominance of the Internet places special legal obligations on it to ensure the protection of users' human rights. "It's clear that when the United States is conducting surveillance, these decisions and operations start in the United States, the servers are at NSA headquarters, and the capabilities are mainly in the United States," he said. "To argue that they have no human rights obligations overseas is dangerous because it sends a message that there is void in terms of human rights protection outside countries territory. It's going back to the idea that you can create a legal black hole where there is no applicable law." There were signs emerging on Wednesday that America may have been making ground in pressing the Brazilians and Germans to back on one of its toughest provisions. In an effort to address the concerns of the U.S. and its allies, Brazil and Germany agreed to soften the language suggesting that mass surveillance may constitute a violation of human rights. Instead, it simply deep "concern at the negative impact" that extraterritorial surveillance "may have on the exercise of and enjoyment of human rights." The U.S., however, has not yet indicated it would support the revised proposal. The concession "is regrettable. But it’s not the end of the battle by any means," said Human Rights Watch’s PoKempner. She added that there will soon be another opportunity to corral America's spies: a U.N. discussion on possible human rights violations as a result of extraterritorial surveillance will soon be taken up by the U.N. High commissioner. *** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 00:02:01 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:02:01 +0800 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5292D9C9.6090608@ciroap.org> On 25/11/13 00:59, George Sadowsky wrote: > _Fourth_, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil > society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed > by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some > representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various > extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various > kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore > grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And > although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their > actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder > groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that > reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension > is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups > instead of being siloed. (Since the above was reposted from an ISOC list, I'm just reposting the reply that I sent there.) More importantly that tension reflects real power differences between the groups overall, not just the fact that they have been divided into silos, as if that had created an artificial rivalry like between football teams. Civil society does not push back for the sake of pushing back. We do so in response to the misuse of power against the interests of the powerless. Whilst I agree with you that civil society should extend beyond organised civil society, the latter can't be dismissed or sidelined on the basis that it is somehow separated from the rest. We are connected to people at large, even though it is not always through representative structures (though it often is, as in the case of my organisation and its members), but also through research and project work. So when broad segments of (organised) civil society may seem at times to be critical of the (organised) technical community this is not general antagonism, but a response to specific positions that the technical community has consistently taken that we perceive as against the broader public interest. Its long-standing opposition to reforms to Internet governance arrangements is an example case of this. Now, when suddenly the sands have shifted, and some of the leading organisations of the technical community are now more receptive to significant Internet governance reforms, it shouldn't be that we are the ones being criticised for our caution about your latest bridging cum advocacy initiatives (like 1net). After all, we are not the ones who have shifted our position! In the long run, I do agree that it would be great if the non-governmental and non-private sector technical community could be merged back into mainstream civil society for purposes of representation in Internet governance processes, but this can't be forced. There needs to be good faith shown on all sides, along with willingness to compromise, and a letting go of the reins. PS. For time management reasons, I will be neither reading nor replying to email from Tuesday to Friday. Apologies in advance for any inconvenience. -- *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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Mon Nov 25 00:54:17 2013 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 05:54:17 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1385358857.69341.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Hi all, Thank you Grace for sharing those updates about the  African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Just last week ( 21 and 22 November 2013) , the National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of Burundi  ( I am burundian based in Burundi) has conducted a sensitisation workshop about the issue of cybersecurity. This workshop is the first step towards the drafting the cybersecurity law for Burundi.  I attended it as a member of ISOC Burundi chapter. Speaking about international legal frameworks about cyber security, the invited expert raised the Budapest Convetion. Representatives of the regulatory authority said they were not aware of this convetion. I made an intervention and raised the fact that AU is drafting another convention. Then, we had some discussions : the advantages and disadvantages for a country like Burundi to sign the Budapest Convention, .... Allow me to ask some questions : Who are the drafters of that convention ? How are African states involved ? Which services at country level are involved ? My problem is that African countries may seek to sign the Budapest Convention and ignoring the AUCC. Best regards   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 Le Lundi 25 novembre 2013 3h28, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : Hi Grace  About I8 to I10 as I have worked extensively on spam at a technical and policy level since the late 90s  I8 : This is a convention and not an international law. It provides a criterion that nations in the American will commit to harmonize their current (or more likely proposed, in large parts of Africa) to be uniform on this and other provisions. In this case, it advocates transparency in direct marketing offers which is a best practice  I9 : this is an optin law, which is respectful of user privacy and doesn't allow the sending of unsolicited bulk email, which is the canonical definition of spam. This should not restrict itself to marketing but cover other sorts of bulk mail sent by other organizations or individuals. The law should be content neutral and cover all forms of unsolicited bulk email rather than just marketing mail.  I10 : this is a standard prior business relationship exception to make compliance simpler  The articles also need to additionally cover criminal forms of spam as the 419 scam, phishing etc.  They additionally need to specify penalties both for the organization that commissioned the spam and the marketing agency they contracted with to actually send the spam.  Specific language that would be appropriate is in the Australian spam act of 2003 and in the proposed Canadian antispam law, both of which were drafted after open, consultative and multistakeholder processes in the respective countries, including inputs from respected privacy groups.  Before that, data protection and net anonymity have to be carefully balanced to log data but retain it under strict controls and regulation of how it can be used (in accordance with privacy regulations). If you legislate blanket anonymity then scam artists and cybercriminals will extensively abuse it to remain undetected.  These are a first set of thoughts  --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Grace Githaiga" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 3:30 AM IGC and Bestbits Listers I write to you to seek your views on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014. In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and ISOC-KE, and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and ISOC -Uganda, starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. RgdsGrace Below is the announcement made on the multiple lists. 1. Background to the African Union Convention on Cyber Security (AUCC) African Union (AU) convention (52 page document) seeks to intensify the fight against cybercrime across Africa in light of increase in cybercrime, and a lack of mastery of security risks by African countries. Further, that one challenge for African countries is lack of technological security adequate enough to prevent and effectively control technological and informational risks. As such “African States are in dire need of innovative criminal policy strategies that embody States, societal and technical responses to create a credible legal climate for cyber security”. The Convention establishes a framework for cybersecurity in Africa “through organisation of electronic transactions, protection of personal data, promotion of cyber security, e-governance and combating cybercrime” (Conceptual framework). 2. Division of the Convention Part 1 Electronic transactions Section I: Definition of terms Section II: Electronic Commerce (Fields of application of electronic commerce, Contractual responsibility of the electronic provider of goods and services). Section III: Publicity by electronic means. Section IV: Obligations in electronic form (Electronic contracts, Written matter in electronic form, Ensuring the security of electronic transactions). Part II PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION Section I: Definition Section II: Legal framework for personal data protection (Objectives of this Convention with respect to personal data, Scope of application of the Convention, Preliminary formalities for personal data processing). Section III: Institutional framework for protection of personal data (Status, composition or organization, Functions of the protection authority). Section IV: Obligations relating to the conditions governing the processing of personal data (basic principles governing the processing of personal data, Specific principles governing the processing of sensitive data, Interconnection of personal data files). Section V: The rights of the person whose personal data are to be processed (Right to information, Right of access, Right of opposition, Right of correction or suppression). Section VI: Obligations of the personal data processing official (Confidentiality obligations, Security obligations, Conservation obligations, Sustainability obligations). PART III – PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AND COMBATING CYBERCRIME Section 1: Terminology, National cyber security framework, Legislative measures, National cyber security system, National cyber security monitoring structures). Section II: Material penal law (Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies [Attack on, computerized data, Content related offenses], Adapting certain information and communication technologies offenses). Section II: Criminal liability for corporate persons (Adapting certain sanctions to the Information and Communication Technologies, Other penal sanctions, Procedural law, Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies). PART IV: COMMON AND FINAL PROVISIONS Section I: Monitoring mechanism Section II: Final responses The Proposed Discussion We have picked on articles that need clarity, and would request listers to kindly discuss them and provide recommendations where necessary. Also, where necessary, listers are encouraged to identify and share other articles that need clarifications that we may have left out. Day 1 Monday 25/ 11/2013 We begin with Part 1 on Electronic transactions and pick on four articles which we will discuss on Monday (25/11) and Tuesday (26/11). Section III: Publicity by electronic means Article I – 7: Without prejudice to Article I-4 any advertising action, irrespective of its form, accessible through online communication service, shall be clearly identified as such. It shall clearly identify the individual or corporate body on behalf of whom it is undertaken. Question: Should net anonymity be legislated? If so, what measures need to be or not be considered? Question: Should individuals or companies be obliged to reveal their identities and what are the implications? Article I – 8: The conditions governing the possibility of promotional offers as well as the conditions for participating in promotional competitions or games where such offers, competitions or games are electronically disseminated, shall be clearly spelt out and easily accessible. Question: Should an international (or should we call it regional) law legislate on promotional offers and competitions offered locally? Day 2 Tuesday 26/11/13 Article I – 9: Direct marketing through any form of indirect communication including messages forwarded with automatic message sender, facsimile or electronic mails in whatsoever form, using the particulars of an individual who has not given prior consent to receiving the said direct marketing through the means indicated, shall be prohibited by the member states of the African Union. Article I – 10: The provisions of Article I – 9 above notwithstanding, direct marketing prospection by electronic mails shall be permissible where: 1) The particulars of the addressee have been obtained directly from him/her, 2) The recipient has given consent to be contacted by the prospector partners 3) The direct prospection concerns similar products or services provided by the same individual or corporate body. Question: Is this a realistic way of dealing with spam? Article I – 27 Where the legislative provisions of Member States have not laid down other provisions, and where there is no valid agreement between the parties, the judge shall resolve proof related conflicts by determining by all possible means the most plausible claim regardless of the message base employed. Question: What is the meaning of this article and is it necessary? Some clarity needed! Day 3 Wednesday 27 /11/13 Today, we move onto PART II: PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION and will deal with three questions. Objectives of this Convention with respect to personal data Article II – 2: Each Member State of the African Union shall put in place a legal framework with a view to establishing a mechanism to combat breaches of private life likely to arise from the gathering, processing, transmission, storage and use of personal data. The mechanism so established shall ensure that any data processing, in whatsoever form, respects the freedoms and fundamental rights of physical persons while recognizing the prerogatives of the State, the rights of local communities and the target for which the businesses were established. Question: What is the relevance of this article? What are these state prerogatives? And given the increased interest of state surveillance, how can states balance respect of FOE while recognising state prerogatives? Article II-6, II-7, 11-8, II-11, II-12, II-13 refer to a Protection Authority which is meant to establish standards for data protection. Article II – 14 provides for each Member State of the African Union to establish an authority with responsibility to protect personal data. It shall be an independent administrative authority with the task of ensuring that the processing of personal data is conducted in accordance with domestic legislations. In article II-17 states that ‘Sworn agents may be invited to participate in audit missions in accordance with extant provisions in Member States of the African Union’. Question: Considering that this article seems to be tied to the Protection Authority, what is its relevance? And who is a ‘sworn agent?’ What should this authority look like in terms of its composition? Article II – 20: …Members of the protection authority shall not receive instructions from any authority in the exercise of their functions. Article II – 21: Member States are engaged to provide the national protection authority human, technical and financial resources necessary to accomplish their mission. Question: It appears that this Data Protection Authority is envisaged to be fully government supported. Therefore, should we be talking of its independence? In what way should this article be framed so that it ensures independence of the Authority? Article II – 28 to II-34 outlines six principles governing the processing of personal data namely: Consent and of legitimacy, Honesty, Objective, relevance and conservation of processed personal data, Accuracy, Transparency and Confidentiality and security of personal data. Under each of the specific principles, detailed explanation of how each should be undertaken is offered. Question: Is this explanation and detailing of how to undertake each necessary in an international (regional) law necessary or needed? Is this legislation overkill? Day 4 Thursdsay 28/11/2013 Part III Day 4 will focus on PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AND COMBATING CYBERCRIME Article III – 14: Harmonization 1) Member States have to undertake necessary measures to ensure that the legislative measures and / or regulations adopted to fight against cybercrime enhance the possibility of regional harmonization of these measures and respect the principle of double criminality. Question: What is the principle of double criminality here? Section II: Other penal sanctions Article III – 48 Each Member State of the African Union have to take necessary legislative measures to ensure that, in the case of conviction for an offense committed by means of digital communication facility, the competent jurisdiction or the judge handling the case gives a ruling imposing additional punishment. Question: What is the interpretation of additional punishment? Is this not granting of absolute powers to judges? Day Five 29/11/2013 This will be dedicated to any other issue(s)that listers may want to raise in regard to the Convention. Further, listers can go back to issues of any other day and discuss them here. Are there other articles that you would like to share that need clarification? What other issue(s) would you like to raise? References DRAFT AFRICAN UNION CONVENTION ON THE CONFIDENCE AND SECURITY IN CYBERSPACEhttp://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf http://daucc.wordpress.com/ http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/262/148/817/ http://daucc.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/paper-review-basic-drawbacks-of-the-draft-african-union-convention-on-the-confidence-and-security-in-cyberspace/ http://michaelmurungi.blogspot.com/2012/08/comments-on-draft-african-union.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 25 01:29:25 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:59:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Message-ID: It does appear that the au convention on a quick superficial reading does not substantially conflict with the Budapest convention. The advantage of joining the Budapest convention is harmonizing your local law with those of several countries around the world and also joining a network of mlats that make it easier for you to pursue cybercrime cases where the offender lives in another country that is a signatory to the convention. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Grace Githaiga" , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 11:24 AM Hi all, Thank you Grace for sharing those updates about the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Just last week ( 21 and 22 November 2013) , the National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of Burundi ( I am burundian based in Burundi) has conducted a sensitisation workshop about the issue of cybersecurity. This workshop is the first step towards the drafting the cybersecurity law for Burundi. I attended it as a member of ISOC Burundi chapter. Speaking about international legal frameworks about cyber security, the invited expert raised the Budapest Convetion. Representatives of the regulatory authority said they were not aware of this convetion. I made an intervention and raised the fact that AU is drafting another convention. Then, we had some discussions : the advantages and disadvantages for a country like Burundi to sign the Budapest Convention, .... Allow me to ask some questions : Who are the drafters of that convention ? How are African states involved ? Which services at country level are involved ? My problem is that African countries may seek to sign the Budapest Convention and ignoring the AUCC. Best regards NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 Le Lundi 25 novembre 2013 3h28, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : Hi Grace About I8 to I10 as I have worked extensively on spam at a technical and policy level since the late 90s I8 : This is a convention and not an international law. It provides a criterion that nations in the American will commit to harmonize their current (or more likely proposed, in large parts of Africa) to be uniform on this and other provisions. In this case, it advocates transparency in direct marketing offers which is a best practice I9 : this is an optin law, which is respectful of user privacy and doesn't allow the sending of unsolicited bulk email, which is the canonical definition of spam. This should not restrict itself to marketing but cover other sorts of bulk mail sent by other organizations or individuals. The law should be content neutral and cover all forms of unsolicited bulk email rather than just marketing mail. I10 : this is a standard prior business relationship exception to make compliance simpler The articles also need to additionally cover criminal forms of spam as the 419 scam, phishing etc. They additionally need to specify penalties both for the organization that commissioned the spam and the marketing agency they contracted with to actually send the spam. Specific language that would be appropriate is in the Australian spam act of 2003 and in the proposed Canadian antispam law, both of which were drafted after open, consultative and multistakeholder processes in the respective countries, including inputs from respected privacy groups. Before that, data protection and net anonymity have to be carefully balanced to log data but retain it under strict controls and regulation of how it can be used (in accordance with privacy regulations). If you legislate blanket anonymity then scam artists and cybercriminals will extensively abuse it to remain undetected. These are a first set of thoughts --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Grace Githaiga" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 3:30 AM IGC and Bestbits Listers I write to you to seek your views on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014. In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and ISOC-KE, and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and ISOC -Uganda, starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. RgdsGrace Below is the announcement ma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Mon Nov 25 01:52:03 2013 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 06:52:03 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1385362323.33957.YahooMailNeo@web133201.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Thank you Grace again. Nice day   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 Le Lundi 25 novembre 2013 8h30, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : It does appear that the au convention on a quick superficial reading does not substantially conflict with the Budapest convention.  The advantage of joining the Budapest convention is harmonizing your local law with those of several countries around the world and also joining a network of mlats that make it easier for you to pursue cybercrime cases where the offender lives in another country that is a signatory to the convention.  --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Grace Githaiga" , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 11:24 AM Hi all, Thank you Grace for sharing those updates about the  African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Just last week ( 21 and 22 November 2013) , the National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of Burundi  ( I am burundian based in Burundi) has conducted a sensitisation workshop about the issue of cybersecurity. This workshop is the first step towards the drafting the cybersecurity law for Burundi.  I attended it as a member of ISOC Burundi chapter. Speaking about international legal frameworks about cyber security, the invited expert raised the Budapest Convetion. Representatives of the regulatory authority said they were not aware of this convetion. I made an intervention and raised the fact that AU is drafting another convention. Then, we had some discussions : the advantages and disadvantages for a country like Burundi to sign the Budapest Convention, .... Allow me to ask some questions : Who are the drafters of that convention ? How are African states involved ? Which services at country level are involved ? My problem is that African countries may seek to sign the Budapest Convention and ignoring the AUCC. Best regards   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 Le Lundi 25 novembre 2013 3h28, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : Hi Grace  About I8 to I10 as I have worked extensively on spam at a technical and policy level since the late 90s  I8 : This is a convention and not an international law. It provides a criterion that nations in the American will commit to harmonize their current (or more likely proposed, in large parts of Africa) to be uniform on this and other provisions. In this case, it advocates transparency in direct marketing offers which is a best practice  I9 : this is an optin law, which is respectful of user privacy and doesn't allow the sending of unsolicited bulk email, which is the canonical definition of spam. This should not restrict itself to marketing but cover other sorts of bulk mail sent by other organizations or individuals. The law should be content neutral and cover all forms of unsolicited bulk email rather than just marketing mail.  I10 : this is a standard prior business relationship exception to make compliance simpler  The articles also need to additionally cover criminal forms of spam as the 419 scam, phishing etc.  They additionally need to specify penalties both for the organization that commissioned the spam and the marketing agency they contracted with to actually send the spam.  Specific language that would be appropriate is in the Australian spam act of 2003 and in the proposed Canadian antispam law, both of which were drafted after open, consultative and multistakeholder processes in the respective countries, including inputs from respected privacy groups.  Before that, data protection and net anonymity have to be carefully balanced to log data but retain it under strict controls and regulation of how it can be used (in accordance with privacy regulations). If you legislate blanket anonymity then scam artists and cybercriminals will extensively abuse it to remain undetected.  These are a first set of thoughts  --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Grace Githaiga" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 3:30 AM IGC and Bestbits Listers I write to you to seek your views on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014. In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and ISOC-KE, and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and ISOC -Uganda, starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. RgdsGrace Below is the announcement ma ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 02:05:18 2013 From: Anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:05:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Message-ID: Dear Grace APC would definitely give input.  I had a good look at it and was alarmed by extensive limitations on free speech and very loose definitions of hate and blasphemous and speech. Also efforts to make intermediaries liable. I am travelling this week but will do my best and ask colleagues for help. Anriette Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Grace Githaiga Date: To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) IGC and Bestbits Listers I write to you to seek your views on the  African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf  KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014.  In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and ISOC-KE,  and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)  and ISOC -Uganda,  starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution.  Rgds Grace Below is the announcement made on the multiple lists.    1.       Background to the African Union Convention on Cyber Security (AUCC) African Union (AU) convention (52 page document) seeks to intensify the fight against cybercrime across Africa in light of increase in cybercrime, and a lack of mastery of security risks by African countries. Further, that one challenge for African countries is lack of technological security adequate enough to prevent and effectively control technological and informational risks. As such “African States are in dire need of innovative criminal policy strategies that embody States, societal and technical responses to create a credible legal climate for cyber security”. The Convention establishes a framework for cybersecurity in Africa “through organisation of electronic transactions, protection of personal data, promotion of cyber security, e-governance and combating cybercrime” (Conceptual framework).   2.       Division of the Convention Part 1                    Electronic transactions Section I:             Definition of terms Section II:            Electronic Commerce (Fields of application of electronic commerce, Contractual responsibility of the electronic provider of goods and services). Section III:           Publicity by electronic means. Section IV:          Obligations in electronic form (Electronic contracts, Written matter in electronic form, Ensuring the security of electronic transactions).   Part II    PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION Section I:             Definition Section II:            Legal framework for personal data protection (Objectives of this Convention with respect to personal data, Scope of application of the Convention, Preliminary formalities for personal data processing). Section III:           Institutional framework for protection of personal data (Status, composition or organization, Functions of the protection authority). Section IV:          Obligations relating to the conditions governing the processing of personal data (basic principles governing the processing of personal data, Specific principles governing the processing of sensitive data, Interconnection of personal data files). Section V:            The rights of the person whose personal data are to be processed (Right to information, Right of access, Right of opposition, Right of correction or suppression). Section VI:          Obligations of the personal data processing official (Confidentiality obligations, Security obligations, Conservation obligations, Sustainability obligations).   PART III – PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AND COMBATING CYBERCRIME Section 1:            Terminology, National cyber security framework, Legislative measures, National cyber security system, National cyber security monitoring structures). Section II:            Material penal law (Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies [Attack on, computerized data, Content related offenses], Adapting certain information and communication technologies offenses). Section II:            Criminal liability for corporate persons (Adapting certain sanctions to the Information and Communication Technologies, Other penal sanctions, Procedural law, Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies).    PART IV: COMMON AND FINAL PROVISIONS  Section I:            Monitoring mechanism Section II:            Final responses   The Proposed Discussion We have picked on articles that need clarity, and would request listers to kindly discuss them and provide recommendations where necessary. Also, where necessary, listers are encouraged to identify and share other articles that need clarifications that we may have left out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 02:20:22 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:50:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Message-ID: Do you have specific sections in mind anriette? So far I have only reviewed the cybercrime / spam sections in the document. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Anriette Esterhuysen" To: "Grace Githaiga" , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 12:35 PM Dear Grace APC would definitely give input. I had a good look at it and was alarmed by extensive limitations on free speech and very loose definitions of hate and blasphemous and speech. Also efforts to make intermediaries liable. I am travelling this week but will do my best and ask colleagues for help. Anriette Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Grace Githaiga Date: To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) IGC and Bestbits Listers I write to you to seek your views on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014. In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and ISOC-KE, and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and ISOC -Uganda, starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. Rgds Grace Below is the announcement made on the multiple lists. 1. Background to the African Union Convention on Cyber Security (AUCC) African Union (AU) convention (52 page document) seeks to intensify the fight against cybercrime across Africa in light of increase in cybercrime, and a lack of mastery of security risks by African countries. Further, that one challenge for African countries is lack of technological security adequate enough to prevent and effectively control technological and informational risks. As such “African States are in dire need of innovative criminal policy strategies that embody States, societal and technical responses to create a credible legal climate for cyber security”. The Convention establishes a framework for cybersecurity in Africa “through organisation of electronic transactions, protection of personal data, promotion of cyber security, e-governance and combating cybercrime” (Conceptual framework). 2. Division of the Convention Part 1 Electronic transactions Section I: Definition of terms Section II: Electronic Commerce (Fields of application of electronic commerce, Contractual responsibility of the electronic provider of goods and services). Section III: Publicity by electronic means. Section IV: Obligations in electronic form (Electronic contracts, Written matter in electronic form, Ensuring the security of electronic transactions). Part II PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION Section I: Definition Section II: Legal framework for personal data protection (Objectives of this Convention with respect to personal data, Scope of application of the Convention, Preliminary formalities for personal data processing). Section III: Institutional framework for protection of personal data (Status, composition or organization, Functions of the protection authority). Section IV: Obligations relating to the conditions governing the processing of personal data (basic principles governing the processing of personal data, Specific principles governing the processing of sensitive data, Interconnection of personal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 25 05:39:22 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:39:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Inside America's Plan to Kill Online Privacy Rights Everywhere In-Reply-To: <5292BF43.1040705@itforchange.net> References: <52925BF7.2070605@bluewin.ch> <5292BF43.1040705@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1279560156.10873.1385375962747.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m12> Dear Parminder Once more you hit the point ! Thanks for this info which questions all of us who are aware of serious threats facing civil rights and coming from the US. Another information that is close to this issue is the Vinton Cerf's (the Google Chief Internet evangelist -sic) statement that on the Internet privacy wiill be abnormal and that there will be a growing difficulty for attaining it, if my translation of a french article is correct. The article concerned can be read here : http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/futurologue-en-chef-google-annonce-fin-vie-privee-faut-resoudre-fabrice-epelboin-frederic-jutant-906467.html It's a long dialogue and the texte is in french : two (bg) obstacles on this list ... unfortunately ! Best greetings to all members of both lists Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 25/11/13 04:10 > De : "parminder" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Inside America's Plan to Kill Online Privacy Rights Everywhere > > > > > from foreign policy > > Exclusive: Inside America's Plan to Kill Online Privacy Rights Everywhere Posted By Colum Lynch Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 6:10 PM Share The United States and its key intelligence allies are quietly working behind the scenes to kneecap a mounting movement in the United Nations to promote a universal human right to online privacy, according to diplomatic sources and an internal American government document obtained by The Cable. The diplomatic battle is playing out in an obscure U.N. General Assembly committee that is considering a proposal by Brazil and Germany to place constraints on unchecked internet surveillance by the National Security Agency and other foreign intelligence services. American representatives have made it clear that they won't tolerate such checks on their global surveillance network. The stakes are high, particularly in Washington -- which is seeking to contain an international backlash against NSA spying -- and in Brasilia, where Brazilian President Dilma Roussef is personally involved in monitoring the U.N. negotiations. The Brazilian and German initiative seeks to apply the right to privacy, which is enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to online communications. Their proposal, first revealed by The Cable, affirms a "right to privacy that is not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence." It notes that while public safety may "justify the gathering and protection of certain sensitive information," nations "must ensure full compliance" with international human rights laws. A final version the text is scheduled to be presented to U.N. members on Wednesday evening and the resolution is expected to be adopted next week. A draft of the resolution, which was obtained by The Cable, calls on states to "to respect and protect the right to privacy," asserting that the "same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy." It also requests the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, present the U.N. General Assembly next year with a report on the protection and promotion of the right to privacy, a provision that will ensure the issue remains on the front burner. More FP Coverage THE NSA LEAKS Meet the Spies Doing the NSA's Dirty Work Spy Copters, Lasers, and Break-In Teams The FBI is Helping the NSA Spy, but Senators Don't Want to Know About It Publicly, U.S. representatives say they're open to an affirmation of privacy rights. "The United States takes very seriously our international legal obligations, including those under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," Kurtis Cooper, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said in an email. "We have been actively and constructively negotiating to ensure that the resolution promotes human rights and is consistent with those obligations." But privately, American diplomats are pushing hard to kill a provision of the Brazilian and German draft which states that "extraterritorial surveillance" and mass interception of communications, personal information, and metadata may constitute a violation of human rights. The United States and its allies, according to diplomats, outside observers, and documents, contend that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not apply to foreign espionage. In recent days, the United States circulated to its allies a confidential paper highlighting American objectives in the negotiations, "Right to Privacy in the Digital Age -- U.S. Redlines." It calls for changing the Brazilian and German text so "that references to privacy rights are referring explicitly to States' obligations under ICCPR and remove suggestion that such obligations apply extraterritorially." In other words: America wants to make sure it preserves the right to spy overseas. The U.S. paper also calls on governments to promote amendments that would weaken Brazil's and Germany's contention that some "highly intrusive" acts of online espionage may constitute a violation of freedom of expression. Instead, the United States wants to limit the focus to illegalsurveillance -- which the American government claims it never, ever does. Collecting information on tens of millions of people around the world is perfectly acceptable, the Obama administration has repeatedly said. It's authorized by U.S. statute, overseen by Congress, and approved by American courts. "Recall that the USG's [U.S. government's] collection activities that have been disclosed are lawful collections done in a manner protective of privacy rights," the paper states. "So a paragraph expressing concern about illegal surveillance is one with which we would agree." The privacy resolution, like most General Assembly decisions, is neither legally binding nor enforceable by any international court. But international lawyers say it is important because it creates the basis for an international consensus -- referred to as "soft law" -- that over time will make it harder and harder for the United States to argue that its mass collection of foreigners' data is lawful and in conformity with human rights norms. "They want to be able to say ‘we haven't broken the law, we're not breaking the law, and we won't break the law,'" said Dinah PoKempner, the general counsel for Human Rights Watch, who has been tracking the negotiations. The United States, she added, wants to be able to maintain that "we have the freedom to scoop up anything we want through the massive surveillance of foreigners because we have no legal obligations." The United States negotiators have been pressing their case behind the scenes, raising concerns that the assertion of extraterritorial human rights could constrain America's effort to go after international terrorists. But Washington has remained relatively muted about their concerns in the U.N. negotiating sessions. According to one diplomat, "the United States has been very much in the backseat," leaving it to its allies, Australia, Britain, and Canada, to take the lead. There is no extraterritorial obligation on states "to comply with human rights," explained one diplomat who supports the U.S. position. "The obligation is on states to uphold the human rights of citizens within their territory and areas of their jurisdictions." The position, according to Jamil Dakwar, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Human Rights Program, has little international backing. The International Court of Justice, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, and the European Court have all asserted that states do have an obligation to comply with human rights laws beyond their own borders, he noted. "Governments do have obligation beyond their territories," said Dakwar, particularly in situations, like the Guantanamo Bay detention center, where the United States exercises "effective control" over the lives of the detainees. Both PoKempner and Dakwar suggested that courts may also judge that the U.S. dominance of the Internet places special legal obligations on it to ensure the protection of users' human rights. "It's clear that when the United States is conducting surveillance, these decisions and operations start in the United States, the servers are at NSA headquarters, and the capabilities are mainly in the United States," he said. "To argue that they have no human rights obligations overseas is dangerous because it sends a message that there is void in terms of human rights protection outside countries territory. It's going back to the idea that you can create a legal black hole where there is no applicable law." There were signs emerging on Wednesday that America may have been making ground in pressing the Brazilians and Germans to back on one of its toughest provisions. In an effort to address the concerns of the U.S. and its allies, Brazil and Germany agreed to soften the language suggesting that mass surveillance may constitute a violation of human rights. Instead, it simply deep "concern at the negative impact" that extraterritorial surveillance "may have on the exercise of and enjoyment of human rights." The U.S., however, has not yet indicated it would support the revised proposal. The concession "is regrettable. But it’s not the end of the battle by any means," said Human Rights Watch’s PoKempner. She added that there will soon be another opportunity to corral America's spies: a U.N. discussion on possible human rights violations as a result of extraterritorial surveillance will soon be taken up by the U.N. High commissioner. *** > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 06:00:28 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:30:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Inside America's Plan to Kill Online Privacy Rights Everywhere In-Reply-To: <1279560156.10873.1385375962747.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m12> References: <52925BF7.2070605@bluewin.ch> <5292BF43.1040705@itforchange.net> <1279560156.10873.1385375962747.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m12> Message-ID: <55FFCBA6-7C8E-43F1-9E4D-9358B8FD18DF@hserus.net> Hate to rain in on this mutual admiration + google bashing fest but try to take quotes in context rather than out of them .. even when translated into french. http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/20/5125922/vint-cerf-google-internet-evangelist-says-privacy-may-be-anomaly That link reports it a bit more fully. Vint Cerf says that privacy in communications only evolved due to technology and did not exist in the early days of telecom (for example where a telephone operator could listen into your entire conversation, even during the lifetimes of a lot of us). And that privacy paradigms need to be redefined - especially with changing uses of the internet such as social media. --srs (iPad) > On 25-Nov-2013, at 16:09, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > > > Dear Parminder > > > > Once more you hit the point ! Thanks for this info which questions all of us who are aware of serious threats facing civil rights and coming from the US. > > > > Another information that is close to this issue is the Vinton Cerf's (the Google Chief Internet evangelist -sic) statement that on the Internet privacy wiill be abnormal and that there will be a growing difficulty for attaining it, if my translation of a french article is correct. The article concerned can be read here : > > > > > http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/futurologue-en-chef-google-annonce-fin-vie-privee-faut-resoudre-fabrice-epelboin-frederic-jutant-906467.html > > > > It's a long dialogue and the texte is in french : two (bg) obstacles on this list ... unfortunately ! > > > > Best greetings to all members of both lists > > > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > > Message du 25/11/13 04:10 > > De : "parminder" > > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," > > Copie à : > > Objet : [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Inside America's Plan to Kill Online Privacy Rights Everywhere > > > > > > > > > > > from foreign policy > > > > > > Exclusive: Inside America's Plan to Kill Online Privacy Rights Everywhere > > Posted By Colum Lynch Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 6:10 PM Share > > The United States and its key intelligence allies are quietly working behind the scenes to kneecap a mounting movement in the United Nations to promote a universal human right to online privacy, according to diplomatic sources and an internal American government document obtained by The Cable. > > The diplomatic battle is playing out in an obscure U.N. General Assembly committee that is considering a proposal by Brazil and Germany to place constraints on unchecked internet surveillance by the National Security Agency and other foreign intelligence services. American representatives have made it clear that they won't tolerate such checks on their global surveillance network. The stakes are high, particularly in Washington -- which is seeking to contain an international backlash against NSA spying -- and in Brasilia, where Brazilian President Dilma Roussef is personally involved in monitoring the U.N. negotiations. > > The Brazilian and German initiative seeks to apply the right to privacy, which is enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to online communications. Their proposal, first revealed by The Cable, affirms a "right to privacy that is not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence." It notes that while public safety may "justify the gathering and protection of certain sensitive information," nations "must ensure full compliance" with international human rights laws. A final version the text is scheduled to be presented to U.N. members on Wednesday evening and the resolution is expected to be adopted next week. > > A draft of the resolution, which was obtained by The Cable, calls on states to "to respect and protect the right to privacy," asserting that the "same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy." It also requests the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, present the U.N. General Assembly next year with a report on the protection and promotion of the right to privacy, a provision that will ensure the issue remains on the front burner. > > More FP Coverage > THE NSA LEAKS > Meet the Spies Doing the NSA's Dirty Work > Spy Copters, Lasers, and Break-In Teams > The FBI is Helping the NSA Spy, but Senators Don't Want to Know About It > Publicly, U.S. representatives say they're open to an affirmation of privacy rights. "The United States takes very seriously our international legal obligations, including those under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," Kurtis Cooper, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said in an email. "We have been actively and constructively negotiating to ensure that the resolution promotes human rights and is consistent with those obligations." > > But privately, American diplomats are pushing hard to kill a provision of the Brazilian and German draft which states that "extraterritorial surveillance" and mass interception of communications, personal information, and metadata may constitute a violation of human rights. The United States and its allies, according to diplomats, outside observers, and documents, contend that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not apply to foreign espionage. > > In recent days, the United States circulated to its allies a confidential paper highlighting American objectives in the negotiations, "Right to Privacy in the Digital Age -- U.S. Redlines." It calls for changing the Brazilian and German text so "that references to privacy rights are referring explicitly to States' obligations under ICCPR and remove suggestion that such obligations apply extraterritorially." In other words: America wants to make sure it preserves the right to spy overseas. > > The U.S. paper also calls on governments to promote amendments that would weaken Brazil's and Germany's contention that some "highly intrusive" acts of online espionage may constitute a violation of freedom of expression. Instead, the United States wants to limit the focus to illegalsurveillance -- which the American government claims it never, ever does. Collecting information on tens of millions of people around the world is perfectly acceptable, the Obama administration has repeatedly said. It's authorized by U.S. statute, overseen by Congress, and approved by American courts. > > "Recall that the USG's [U.S. government's] collection activities that have been disclosed are lawful collections done in a manner protective of privacy rights," the paper states. "So a paragraph expressing concern about illegal surveillance is one with which we would agree." > > The privacy resolution, like most General Assembly decisions, is neither legally binding nor enforceable by any international court. But international lawyers say it is important because it creates the basis for an international consensus -- referred to as "soft law" -- that over time will make it harder and harder for the United States to argue that its mass collection of foreigners' data is lawful and in conformity with human rights norms. > > "They want to be able to say ‘we haven't broken the law, we're not breaking the law, and we won't break the law,'" said Dinah PoKempner, the general counsel for Human Rights Watch, who has been tracking the negotiations. The United States, she added, wants to be able to maintain that "we have the freedom to scoop up anything we want through the massive surveillance of foreigners because we have no legal obligations." > > The United States negotiators have been pressing their case behind the scenes, raising concerns that the assertion of extraterritorial human rights could constrain America's effort to go after international terrorists. But Washington has remained relatively muted about their concerns in the U.N. negotiating sessions. According to one diplomat, "the United States has been very much in the backseat," leaving it to its allies, Australia, Britain, and Canada, to take the lead. > > There is no extraterritorial obligation on states "to comply with human rights," explained one diplomat who supports the U.S. position. "The obligation is on states to uphold the human rights of citizens within their territory and areas of their jurisdictions." > > The position, according to Jamil Dakwar, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Human Rights Program, has little international backing. The International Court of Justice, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, and the European Court have all asserted that states do have an obligation to comply with human rights laws beyond their own borders, he noted. "Governments do have obligation beyond their territories," said Dakwar, particularly in situations, like the Guantanamo Bay detention center, where the United States exercises "effective control" over the lives of the detainees. > > Both PoKempner and Dakwar suggested that courts may also judge that the U.S. dominance of the Internet places special legal obligations on it to ensure the protection of users' human rights. > > "It's clear that when the United States is conducting surveillance, these decisions and operations start in the United States, the servers are at NSA headquarters, and the capabilities are mainly in the United States," he said. "To argue that they have no human rights obligations overseas is dangerous because it sends a message that there is void in terms of human rights protection outside countries territory. It's going back to the idea that you can create a legal black hole where there is no applicable law." There were signs emerging on Wednesday that America may have been making ground in pressing the Brazilians and Germans to back on one of its toughest provisions. In an effort to address the concerns of the U.S. and its allies, Brazil and Germany agreed to soften the language suggesting that mass surveillance may constitute a violation of human rights. Instead, it simply deep "concern at the negative impact" that extraterritorial surveillance "may have on the exercise of and enjoyment of human rights." The U.S., however, has not yet indicated it would support the revised proposal. > > The concession "is regrettable. But it’s not the end of the battle by any means," said Human Rights Watch’s PoKempner. She added that there will soon be another opportunity to corral America's spies: a U.N. discussion on possible human rights violations as a result of extraterritorial surveillance will soon be taken up by the U.N. High commissioner. > > *** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Mon Nov 25 06:59:58 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 06:59:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: WEBCAST TODAY: Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre Opening Conference In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is under way currently on the 2nd panel. Very nice quality webcast, and very interesting topic. joly posted: "Tonight, Monday November 18 2013, OpenCUNY will again host the OpenITP Techno-Activism Third Monday at CUNY Graduate Center NYC. This month's event is a hands-on TOR workshop lead by George Rosamond. Bring your laptop and learn how to use the most popular" [image: Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre]Today, Monday November 25 2013, the Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre at the James Martin 21st Century School in Oxford UK is holding its inaugural conference. The entire conference is being streamed live via YouTube. *What*: Inaugural Cyber Security Capacity Centre Conference *Where*: Oxford Martin School, UK *When*: Monday November 25 2013 0900-1830 UTC *Agenda*: http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/Programme%20Cyber%20Capacity%20Conf%2025%20Nov%202013.pdf *Webcast*: http://www.youtube.com/user/21school *Twitter*: #cyberox Comment See all comments *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6150 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.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 Nov 25 08:18:02 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 18:48:02 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk> <2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org> <-562132103237437841@unknownmsgid> <52901559.6050508@itforchange.net> <7511B518-ED0C-4738-98E3-96E77C013102@uzh.ch> <5290A642.4010302@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <52934E0A.2060403@itforchange.net> On Sunday 24 November 2013 06:29 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Parminder: > To the extent that we can all agree that there are indeed many issues that are not being dealt by current mechanisms, that is a good start for doing the real work of thinking about the needed mechanisms. > > Wolfgang: > Can you specify which issue is NOT dealt by the IGF? And if all issues can be raised within the framework of the IGF, why not to make the IGF stronger? IGF cannot decide on issues, and unless it is your position that nothing in global IG needs any kind of decisions (is it your position?), IGF of course needs to be complemented by a decision making body. Wolfgang, you co-authored the Council of Europe (CoE) report on cross border Internet. Do you think that numerous internet public policy issues you mention there need no decision making. If so, why did you not recommend in your report that CoE should should forgo inter- governmental means to develop public policies, and allow EuroDIG, the European IGF, to do it? In fact the report says, "States have rights and responsibilities for developing and implementing international Internet-related public policy...". To the credit of its authors, it also says' "“International Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements should ensure full and equal participation of all countries.” That should seal it in terms of the issue under discussion - the need for mechanisms at the global level for international Internet-related public policies, and the nature of such mechanisms. In fact the CoE report recommended that an *inter-governmental body* develops 1, General principles on Internet governance 2. Recommendations for international cooperation on management of critical internet resources (i would take this as pertaining to the 'oversight' issue) The report further goes on to recommend to an inter-gov body of the CoE "to continue the examination of the feasibility of drafting instruments designed to preserve or reinforce the protection of crossborder flow of Internet traffic, openness and neutrality". I see almost all my assertions regarding 'enhanced cooperation' mandate from Tunis conform to the report you co-authored for CoE.. Then, why are views different when we speak of the global stage? This is also as much about a cross-border Internet. > You were a proponent of better outpput in the UNCSTD IGF Improgeent WG! Yes, very much so. And you know what was the response of most others in the room to the 'India proposal' for giving recommendatory powers to the IGF, and making it and its MAG more functional ...... Those who most resisted that proposal are now most active to empower IGF to take up the enhanced cooperation role - that merits some explanation.... > What is your comment to Jeremy´s and my proposal for an (IGF) Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council (MIPOC) as an addition to the MAG (which is just a program committteee)? My comment is as follows: the day we admit business reps (on an equal basis) into actual public policy making decisions, it would mark the end of democracy ..... And there is enough passion for democracy left in the world that such a thing would never be allowed... For some time people may be able to push such an anti-democratic proposal behind the smoke screen of multistakeholderism but when it begins to become serious, people would find out what it really is about and just never accept it... Even the CoE wont accept it, as per the above mentioned report. parminder > > w > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 25 08:19:36 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:19:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Suresh, There is a document Grace had shared on KICTANET that has some of the issues Anriette is raising, find attached. Regards ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya. twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh On 25 November 2013 07:20, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Do you have specific sections in mind anriette? So far I have only > reviewed the cybercrime / spam sections in the document. > > --srs (htc one x) > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Anriette Esterhuysen" > To: "Grace Githaiga" , " > governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , " > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the > African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) > Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 12:35 PM > > > Dear Grace > > APC would definitely give input. I had a good look at it and was alarmed by extensive limitations on free speech and very loose definitions of hate and blasphemous and speech. Also efforts to make intermediaries liable. I am travelling this week but will do my best and ask colleagues for help. > > Anriette > Sent from Samsung Mobile > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Grace Githaiga > Date: > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: [bestbits] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) > > IGC and Bestbits Listers > > I write to you to seek your views on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf > > KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014. > > In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and ISOC-KE, and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and ISOC -Uganda, starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. > Rgds > Grace > > Below is the announcement made on the multiple lists. > > 1. Background to the African Union Convention on Cyber Security (AUCC) > African Union (AU) convention (52 page document) seeks to intensify the fight against cybercrime across Africa in light of increase in cybercrime, and a lack of mastery of security risks by African countries. Further, that one challenge for African countries is lack of technological security adequate enough to prevent and effectively control technological and informational risks. As such “African States are in dire need of innovative criminal policy strategies that embody States, societal and technical responses to create a credible legal climate for cyber security”. > The Convention establishes a framework for cybersecurity in Africa “through organisation of electronic transactions, protection of personal data, promotion of cyber security, e-governance and combating cybercrime” (Conceptual framework). > > 2. Division of the Convention > Part 1 Electronic transactions > Section I: Definition of terms > Section II: Electronic Commerce (Fields of application of electronic commerce, Contractual responsibility of the electronic provider of goods and services). > Section III: Publicity by electronic means. > Section IV: Obligations in electronic form (Electronic contracts, Written matter in electronic form, Ensuring the security of electronic transactions). > > Part II PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION > Section I: Definition > Section II: Legal framework for personal data protection (Objectives of this Convention with respect to personal data, Scope of application of the Convention, Preliminary formalities for personal data processing). > Section III: Institutional framework for protection of personal data (Status, composition or organization, Functions of the protection authority). > Section IV: Obligations relating to the conditions governing the processing of personal data (basic principles governing the processing of personal data, Specific principles governing the processing of sensitive data, Interconnection of personal > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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: RECOMMENDATIONS ON AUCC.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 204027 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 Mon Nov 25 09:09:09 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:39:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some of the legislation appears to be a copy and paste from various first world legislation .. and yes, in an african context some of it may be risky. However, it would be good to suggest that appropriate controls / checks and balances be put in place before these regulations are implemented, rather than to oppose them altogether. You do need most of them for a functioning cybercrime law .. and yes the wording is fuzzy and prone to multiple interpretations. The AU urgently needs to engage with industry and civil society to provide a workable framework for these laws. --srs (iPad) > On 25-Nov-2013, at 18:49, Kivuva wrote: > > Dear Suresh, > > There is a document Grace had shared on KICTANET that has some of the issues Anriette is raising, find attached. > > Regards > > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya. > twitter.com/lordmwesh > google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh > > >> On 25 November 2013 07:20, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Do you have specific sections in mind anriette? So far I have only reviewed the cybercrime / spam sections in the document. >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Anriette Esterhuysen" >> To: "Grace Githaiga" , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" >> Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) >> Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 12:35 PM >> >> >> Dear Grace >> >> APC would definitely give input. I had a good look at it and was alarmed by extensive limitations on free speech and very loose definitions of hate and blasphemous and speech. Also efforts to make intermediaries liable. I am travelling this week but will do my best and ask colleagues for help. >> >> Anriette >> Sent from Samsung Mobile >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Grace Githaiga >> Date: >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: [bestbits] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) >> >> IGC and Bestbits Listers >> >> I write to you to seek your views on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf >> >> KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014. >> >> In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and ISOC-KE, and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and ISOC -Uganda, starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. >> Rgds >> Grace >> >> Below is the announcement made on the multiple lists. >> >> 1. Background to the African Union Convention on Cyber Security (AUCC) >> African Union (AU) convention (52 page document) seeks to intensify the fight against cybercrime across Africa in light of increase in cybercrime, and a lack of mastery of security risks by African countries. Further, that one challenge for African countries is lack of technological security adequate enough to prevent and effectively control technological and informational risks. As such “African States are in dire need of innovative criminal policy strategies that embody States, societal and technical responses to create a credible legal climate for cyber security”. >> The Convention establishes a framework for cybersecurity in Africa “through organisation of electronic transactions, protection of personal data, promotion of cyber security, e-governance and combating cybercrime” (Conceptual framework). >> >> 2. Division of the Convention >> Part 1 Electronic transactions >> Section I: Definition of terms >> Section II: Electronic Commerce (Fields of application of electronic commerce, Contractual responsibility of the electronic provider of goods and services). >> Section III: Publicity by electronic means. >> Section IV: Obligations in electronic form (Electronic contracts, Written matter in electronic form, Ensuring the security of electronic transactions). >> >> Part II PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION >> Section I: Definition >> Section II: Legal framework for personal data protection (Objectives of this Convention with respect to personal data, Scope of application of the Convention, Preliminary formalities for personal data processing). >> Section III: Institutional framework for protection of personal data (Status, composition or organization, Functions of the protection authority). >> Section IV: Obligations relating to the conditions governing the processing of personal data (basic principles governing the processing of personal data, Specific principles governing the processing of sensitive data, Interconnection of personal >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 10:42:46 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:42:46 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit References: <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk> <2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org> <-562132103237437841@unknownmsgid> <52901559.6050508@itforchange.net> <7511B518-ED0C-4738-98E3-96E77C013102@uzh.ch> <5290A642.4010302@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <52934E0A.2060403@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Parminder, thanks for you reply and the reference to the COE background paper. Indeed, there are numerous governments (also OECD and COE member states) which still believe that the "Status Quo Plus" proposal from the WGIG (that is an intergovernmental Internet council) on top of an hierarchy is the answer to all Internet problems. I disagree. This did not work in 2005. And it will not work in 2014. As I explained in my final statement before the Council of Europe I argued that the adoption of the COE Internet principles declaration by governments can be only the first step. Such a set of principles has to be "globalized" and "multistakeholderized" to be effective. My approach is that today´s intergovernmental treaty system (and relevant intergovernmental mechanisms) are meanwhile embedded into a multistakeholder environment. This does NOT lead to the disapperance of the intergovenrmental treaty system. Governments (and parliaments) will continue to be the first stakeholder in making decisions on public policy issues related to the Internet. And governments can enhance their mutual cooperation and agree on issues (if they are able to agree) whatever they want. This is part of the national sovereignty or - to be correct - part of the jus cogens principles of "sovereign equality" es enshrined in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant UN Declaration on International Law Principles from 1970 which has a detailed definition of the seven jus cogens principles. BTW the seven principles include also the jus cogens principel of the "duty to international cooperation" and leads to the "no harm-principle" in the Internet world ( a certain limitation of sovereignty) which we also discussed at length within the COE. This is not new and will remain as long as the UN exists. What has changed is the environment in which governments operate. And if it comes to the Internet, this environemnt has many layers and many players. In an article - ten years ago - I called it the M³C³ (Multilayer Multiplayer Mechanism of Communication, Coordination and Collaboration). Governments have to adjust their policy and decision making to this new environment. And this includes that they have nowadays to coordinate their policy not only with other governments but have also to share their decision making capacity with other stakeholders. This is new, indeed. But this is what the govenrments agreed in Tunis when they accepted the IG definition, proposed by the WGIG. This will not come overnight. Insofar, to have a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) linked to the IGF with a (limited) decision making capacity would be - in my eyes - an interesting move into the still unchartered territory of multistakeholder decision making and the next realistic and logical step in the long march towards a new global governance system of the 21st century. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: Mo 25.11.2013 14:18 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit On Sunday 24 November 2013 06:29 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: Parminder: To the extent that we can all agree that there are indeed many issues that are not being dealt by current mechanisms, that is a good start for doing the real work of thinking about the needed mechanisms. Wolfgang: Can you specify which issue is NOT dealt by the IGF? And if all issues can be raised within the framework of the IGF, why not to make the IGF stronger? IGF cannot decide on issues, and unless it is your position that nothing in global IG needs any kind of decisions (is it your position?), IGF of course needs to be complemented by a decision making body. Wolfgang, you co-authored the Council of Europe (CoE) report on cross border Internet. Do you think that numerous internet public policy issues you mention there need no decision making. If so, why did you not recommend in your report that CoE should should forgo inter- governmental means to develop public policies, and allow EuroDIG, the European IGF, to do it? In fact the report says, "States have rights and responsibilities for developing and implementing international Internet-related public policy...". To the credit of its authors, it also says' ""International Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements should ensure full and equal participation of all countries." That should seal it in terms of the issue under discussion - the need for mechanisms at the global level for international Internet-related public policies, and the nature of such mechanisms. In fact the CoE report recommended that an *inter-governmental body* develops 1, General principles on Internet governance 2. Recommendations for international cooperation on management of critical internet resources (i would take this as pertaining to the 'oversight' issue) The report further goes on to recommend to an inter-gov body of the CoE "to continue the examination of the feasibility of drafting instruments designed to preserve or re inforce the protection of cross border flow of Internet traffic, openness and neutrality". -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 11:53:00 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:53:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by Michael Gurstein Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment begun by George Sadowsky. Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues? In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point was made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at a recent workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his children also query the speed of the Internet at home when they have to do their homework. The only people excluded from civil society are incarcerated prisoners, and that also is a statement that can be questioned. If I understand him correctly George Sadowsky is making the same point. Civil society is us - all of us. Instead of trying to disentangle the stakeholders from one another could we try to reach agreement on the aspects of the issues? If no one is wearing any particular hat then it should be possible to obtain a clearer picture of the issues that need to be discussed, and the multiple aspects of those issues. Surely at least a part of the "multistakeholder" configuration of WSIS was to provide a means of identifying and harnessing the different types of expertise available, to tackle the different aspects of the challenges created by the Internet and its proliferation. In hindsight the intention must have been partially collaboration and cooperation. Sadly the focus shifted to a third "c" - competition - so that instead of team-powered problem solving we ended up with separation and power struggles. And now on top of that comes betrayal and the death of trust. And the "little people" the "grassroots" become even further excluded from discussion of the interests that affect them, washed out in a wave of personalities and accusations. We do not need to let this breakdown continue. We CAN work together, we've done it before. Trust can be rebuilt. It is a hard slow process, but each of us retains threads of trust which we consider still to be viable. Otherwise we would not be communicating at all. Weave these threads together and we can build something stronger than what existed before, because we will be depending on one another instead of on abstract external factors. And together we will be able to disaggregate the issues into their component aspects and negotiate a point of balance among the differing needs of government, technicians, business and society. Deirdre On 24 November 2013 12:59, George Sadowsky wrote: > All, > > *Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions > and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated.* > > I'm suggesting that we should modify both the words and concept of Sala's > suggestions and my response. > > Let's not think of doing anything formal; I think that both ends would > balk at that, and for good reason. Instead, I'll just be somewhat more > active on this list, and if anything comes up with respect to the technical > community that I can clarify or help with on an informal and personal > basis, I'll try to do that. > > So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if > any of them resonate with any of you. > > *First*, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder > approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet > technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent > classical civil society concerns. As I recall in the 1990s, these > communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet > encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to > explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits. > > The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS > process, caused informal differences to formalize. Issues of > representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes > competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while > informal discussion gradually declined. Polarization of opinion grew as > willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree > suffered. > > *Second*, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical > community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the > MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood. At this point in its > evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels. In order > to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with > Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good > technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a > detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the Internet > technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand > such effects and to inform those deliberating about them. That function > may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and > suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, > either short or long term, or both. > > In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it > is extremely important. > > *Third*, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism > appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating > groups of ideas. A couple of examples illustrate the point. To the extent > that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well > to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of > civil society benefit and should encourage their participation. > Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are > people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent > with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. > The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that > minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding > issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of > recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on > inter-stakeholder group separation. > > *Fourth*, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil > society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by > the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing > organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the > importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent > civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to > populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are > generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back > against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. > Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that > tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging > groups instead of being siloed. > > An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in > the world and remove government involvement, the private sector > involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a > phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains > fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. > > Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder > group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. > Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector > organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. > Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute > "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in > the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large > parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as > we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is > likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as > self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. > This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are > really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive > relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the > underlying reality, > > *I conclude* that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be > an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative > externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to assess the > multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is retained as an > organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative > effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects > of that approach. > > This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me > to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic > relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and > technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank > you for taking the time to read it. I realize that what I have written, > and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have > presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas > that I think may be useful. The more nuanced discussion can and will come > later. > > Your comments are welcome. > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > On Nov 23, 2013, at 1:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Thanks George and it is a potentially interesting proposition. > > But I must say that I’m unclear as to precisely what role is being > suggested here. If the role is to attempt to frame the diversity of voices > being articulated in civil society (in my case including those of the > community informatics community for example) in a manner in which it can be > more readily understood/assimilated/responded to by the technical community > I think that is very useful. > > If it is, on the other hand, to act as a more or less > “authoritative”/designated “filter” of communications/voices from Civil > Society to the Technical Community then I can see quite considerable > difficulty and controversy resulting, if nothing else, from a concern > within certain CS elements of being “silenced/ignored”. > > (The same clarification would need to be made if the role is perceived as > being more of an “honest broker”—i.e. the question being, particularly on > the CS side, how inclusive of all CS interests/voices is the “brokerage” > committed/able to be. > > Perhaps some clarification is in order here either from yourself in how > you perceive the role, or from Ian or Sala on how they presented the role > (and perceive it from a CS perspective). > > (I should also possibly add here that a significant number of those active > in the Community Informatics community would, by their background, > qualifications, experience and current activities qualify as being > “techies” of one sort or another. Whether they would qualify as being > members of the “Technical Community” (TC) under what I understand to be the > criteria for inclusion within the TC as currently defined by the formal TC > structures I’m not sure, as their orientation tends to be towards technical > design and fabrication in support of social/digital inclusion and social > justice.) > > Best to all, > > M > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *George Sadowsky > *Sent:* Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:04 AM > *To:* Ian Peter > *Cc:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and > need for IGC and civil society Liaisons > > Hi, Ian, > > Sala and I talked while we were both in Buenos Aires. Perhaps I can > clarify my sense of what she may have been proposing. > > There is at the moment somewhat of a gulf between the technical community > and the list(s) used by the proclaimed representatives of civil society. > Sometimes such differences of opinion, as well as fact, can be resoled > rather quickly if they are discussed directly by people on both sides of > the issue, rather than being left to fester and feed growing suspicion > and/or discontent. I think that Sala thought that having some announced or > implied line of communication, clearly non-exclusive, might be helpful at > times. I thought so, too. > > Having seen little response from anyone on this list, perhaps the idea > isn't welcome in the more formalized sense in which it has been presented, > and I can understand that. I think that perhaps I could be more active > from time to time in the discussions that occur, and that might help to > bridge some differences between the communities. Although I consider > myself more technical in the context of Internet governance discussions, I > do have roots in development activities that are quite consistent with > some of the expressions of opinion posted to this and similar lists. > > George > > > > <> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Nov 25 12:15:47 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 22:45:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Brazil meeitng Message-ID: <529385C3.60500@itforchange.net> Hi All Is there any news from the meeting that was supposed to take place yesterday at CGI.BR regarding the Brazil meeting... And have we sent the letter about civil society's role and manner of structuring it.... If so, whom was it handed to . I mean, have we been able to reach it to the right people (it being certainly already very very late - by about a month). We need to hand it over personally to members of Brazil's Meeting Organising Committee and obtain a response... Maybe our chosen liaisons can inform us... 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 joana at varonferraz.com Mon Nov 25 12:19:14 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:19:14 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Brazil meeitng In-Reply-To: <529385C3.60500@itforchange.net> References: <529385C3.60500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, the meeting at CGI.br is today. I'm waiting for a final version, with signatures to forward the letter about interim liaisons. Agree its getting late. On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:15 PM, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > Is there any news from the meeting that was supposed to take place > yesterday at CGI.BR regarding the Brazil meeting... > > And have we sent the letter about civil society's role and manner of > structuring it.... If so, whom was it handed to . I mean, have we been able > to reach it to the right people (it being certainly already very very late > - by about a month). > > We need to hand it over personally to members of Brazil's Meeting > Organising Committee and obtain a response... > > Maybe our chosen liaisons can inform us... > > parminder > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 12:32:47 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:02:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Brazil meeitng In-Reply-To: References: <529385C3.60500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <529389BF.4080002@itforchange.net> On Monday 25 November 2013 10:49 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear Parminder, the meeting at CGI.br is today. I'm waiting for a > final version, with signatures to forward the letter about interim > liaisons. Agree its getting late. Thanks for the information, Joana. But then why are we not hurrying it.... whose signatures are you waiting for.... I thought it was decided that we will submit it on friday, so that the right people could see it before the meeting.... not much point to submit it after the major decisions are made.... And I think it should be handed in person to people in authority, and a direct forceful representation of civil society's strong feeling in this regard should be made, and to tell them that civil society groups are awaiting the response from Brazil gov on their representation (do remind them that we had already made this represenation orally at Bali). thanks, parminder > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:15 PM, parminder > wrote: > > Hi All > > Is there any news from the meeting that was supposed to take place > yesterday at CGI.BR regarding the Brazil meeting... > > And have we sent the letter about civil society's role and manner > of structuring it.... If so, whom was it handed to . I mean, have > we been able to reach it to the right people (it being certainly > already very very late - by about a month). > > We need to hand it over personally to members of Brazil's Meeting > Organising Committee and obtain a response... > > Maybe our chosen liaisons can inform us... > > parminder > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 25 12:46:36 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:46:36 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Brazil meeitng In-Reply-To: <529389BF.4080002@itforchange.net> References: <529385C3.60500@itforchange.net> <529389BF.4080002@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Its a closed meeting of CGI.br. No one outside CGI.br is participating. We had a particular rush before in case representatives of the I* would attend that particular meeting. That was a possibility in the agenda, but luckly, it didnt happen. But I'm touching base with Anja, who was kindly pushing the latest thread on this and will solve it today as well. On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:32 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 25 November 2013 10:49 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > Dear Parminder, the meeting at CGI.br is today. I'm waiting for a final > version, with signatures to forward the letter about interim liaisons. > Agree its getting late. > > > Thanks for the information, Joana. > > But then why are we not hurrying it.... whose signatures are you waiting > for.... I thought it was decided that we will submit it on friday, so that > the right people could see it before the meeting.... not much point to > submit it after the major decisions are made.... And I think it should be > handed in person to people in authority, and a direct forceful > representation of civil society's strong feeling in this regard should be > made, and to tell them that civil society groups are awaiting the response > from Brazil gov on their representation (do remind them that we had already > made this represenation orally at Bali). thanks, parminder > > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:15 PM, parminder wrote: > >> Hi All >> >> Is there any news from the meeting that was supposed to take place >> yesterday at CGI.BR regarding the Brazil meeting... >> >> And have we sent the letter about civil society's role and manner of >> structuring it.... If so, whom was it handed to . I mean, have we been able >> to reach it to the right people (it being certainly already very very late >> - by about a month). >> >> We need to hand it over personally to members of Brazil's Meeting >> Organising Committee and obtain a response... >> >> Maybe our chosen liaisons can inform us... >> >> parminder >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Mon Nov 25 12:37:47 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:37:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com> Deirdre, and all, Thank you, Deirdre. I take your point that we should consider shifting the focus to issue-based discussions and away from stakeholder membership-based discussions. That is a very good way to phrase it. (Note that accepting such a shift does not imply that it should replace all other stakeholder membership activities.) Where should we have these issue-based discussions? There have been a number of good and provocative responses to what I wrote below, and I really don't know where to post them and my reactions to them. How can we get these conversations started in a productive and inclusive manner? We now have four relevant lists that I know of, and here may well be more: - the IGC list, - the BestBits list, - the ISOC policy list, and - the new 1Net coordination list. Many of us subscribe to some or all of these list, and therefore see the same posting more than once. I subscribe to all four of the above. With some trepidation, I'm going to post this message on all of the above lists, with the hope that we can converge on an acceptable solution. [I have trimmed some early postings below that led to this point in the discussion.] I myself would favor the 1net list, simply because it is new and meant to be all-inclusive specifically for this purpose, whereas other lists may be (I think) somewhat restrictive and more focused and used for other purposes also. If you respond to this, please consider trimming the response significantly, since the content below will have been posted to all of the four lists. IMO the question to be answered is: on which list, or using which vehicle, can we collect broad involvement in issue-based threads that have to do with aspects of Internet governance? If we can converge on an answer, then we'll eliminate some redundancy and we'll have a more inclusive and more positive discussion of issues. If the redundancy is felt to be useful, then we can keep it; it's agreement on the focal point that's important here. Comments? Suggestions? Criticisms? George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Nov 25, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by Michael Gurstein > Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society > > I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread > Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment > > begun by George Sadowsky. > > Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues? > In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point was made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at a recent workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his children also query the speed of the Internet at home when they have to do their homework. The only people excluded from civil society are incarcerated prisoners, and that also is a statement that can be questioned. If I understand him correctly George Sadowsky is making the same point. Civil society is us - all of us. > > Instead of trying to disentangle the stakeholders from one another could we try to reach agreement on the aspects of the issues? If no one is wearing any particular hat then it should be possible to obtain a clearer picture of the issues that need to be discussed, and the multiple aspects of those issues. > > Surely at least a part of the "multistakeholder" configuration of WSIS was to provide a means of identifying and harnessing the different types of expertise available, to tackle the different aspects of the challenges created by the Internet and its proliferation. In hindsight the intention must have been partially collaboration and cooperation. Sadly the focus shifted to a third "c" - competition - so that instead of team-powered problem solving we ended up with separation and power struggles. And now on top of that comes betrayal and the death of trust. And the "little people" the "grassroots" become even further excluded from discussion of the interests that affect them, washed out in a wave of personalities and accusations. > > We do not need to let this breakdown continue. We CAN work together, we've done it before. Trust can be rebuilt. It is a hard slow process, but each of us retains threads of trust which we consider still to be viable. Otherwise we would not be communicating at all. Weave these threads together and we can build something stronger than what existed before, because we will be depending on one another instead of on abstract external factors. And together we will be able to disaggregate the issues into their component aspects and negotiate a point of balance among the differing needs of government, technicians, business and society. > > Deirdre > > > On 24 November 2013 12:59, George Sadowsky wrote: > All, > > Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated. > > <> > So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if any of them resonate with any of you. > > First, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns. As I recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits. > > The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize. Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined. Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered. > > Second, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood. At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels. In order to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating about them. That function may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long term, or both. > > In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it is extremely important. > > Third, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating groups of ideas. A couple of examples illustrate the point. To the extent that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage their participation. Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on inter-stakeholder group separation. > > Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. > > An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. > > Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, > > I conclude that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects of that approach. > > This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I realize that what I have written, and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas that I think may be useful. The more nuanced discussion can and will come later. > > Your comments are welcome. > > George > > <> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Mon Nov 25 15:32:16 2013 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 20:32:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reporting template for Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Jean Paul for the update on the cybersecurity sensitization workshop in Burundi. Suresh has answered your query on the Budapest Convention. Thanks Suresh. My response to your other two questions:1. Who are the drafters of that Convention?This has been drafted by the African Union Commission. 2. How are African states involved? Which services at country level are involved?The information that African governments were involved though it is not clear at what level i.e. whether it is from the point of conceptualization, or after the draft had been developed. However, this is a question I will include in our reporting template and hope that AUC will provide us with the information on the process. I attach our reporting template. Once again, thank you so much and do keep this debate going.RgdsGrace To: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; ggithaiga at hotmail.com From: suresh at hserus.net Subject: Re: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:59:25 +0530 It does appear that the au convention on a quick superficial reading does not substantially conflict with the Budapest convention. The advantage of joining the Budapest convention is harmonizing your local law with those of several countries around the world and also joining a network of mlats that make it easier for you to pursue cybercrime cases where the offender lives in another country that is a signatory to the convention. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Grace Githaiga" , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 11:24 AM Hi all, Thank you Grace for sharing those updates about the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Just last week ( 21 and 22 November 2013) , the National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of Burundi ( I am burundian based in Burundi) has conducted a sensitisation workshop about the issue of cybersecurity. This workshop is the first step towards the drafting the cybersecurity law for Burundi. I attended it as a member of ISOC Burundi chapter. Speaking about international legal frameworks about cyber security, the invited expert raised the Budapest Convetion. Representatives of the regulatory authority said they were not aware of this convetion. I made an intervention and raised the fact that AU is drafting another convention. Then, we had some discussions : the advantages and disadvantages for a country like Burundi to sign the Budapest Convention, .... Allow me to ask some questions : Who are the drafters of that convention ? How are African states involved ? Which services at country level are involved ? My problem is that African countries may seek to sign the Budapest Convention and ignoring the AUCC. Best regards NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 Le Lundi 25 novembre 2013 3h28, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : Hi Grace About I8 to I10 as I have worked extensively on spam at a technical and policy level since the late 90s I8 : This is a convention and not an international law. It provides a criterion that nations in the American will commit to harmonize their current (or more likely proposed, in large parts of Africa) to be uniform on this and other provisions. In this case, it advocates transparency in direct marketing offers which is a best practice I9 : this is an optin law, which is respectful of user privacy and doesn't allow the sending of unsolicited bulk email, which is the canonical definition of spam. This should not restrict itself to marketing but cover other sorts of bulk mail sent by other organizations or individuals. The law should be content neutral and cover all forms of unsolicited bulk email rather than just marketing mail. I10 : this is a standard prior business relationship exception to make compliance simpler The articles also need to additionally cover criminal forms of spam as the 419 scam, phishing etc. They additionally need to specify penalties both for the organization that commissioned the spam and the marketing agency they contracted with to actually send the spam. Specific language that would be appropriate is in the Australian spam act of 2003 and in the proposed Canadian antispam law, both of which were drafted after open, consultative and multistakeholder processes in the respective countries, including inputs from respected privacy groups. Before that, data protection and net anonymity have to be carefully balanced to log data but retain it under strict controls and regulation of how it can be used (in accordance with privacy regulations). If you legislate blanket anonymity then scam artists and cybercriminals will extensively abuse it to remain undetected. These are a first set of thoughts --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Grace Githaiga" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 3:30 AM IGC and Bestbits Listers I write to you to seek your views on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014. In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and ISOC-KE, and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and ISOC -Uganda, starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. RgdsGrace Below is the announcement ma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Africa Union Convention on cybercrime.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 15707 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 ggithaiga at hotmail.com Mon Nov 25 15:34:31 2013 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 20:34:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Anriette Looking forward to seeing APC's input. I have sent to the list a template that we will be using to put our thoughts together. RgdsGrace Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:05:18 +0100 Subject: Re: [bestbits] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) From: Anriette at apc.org To: ggithaiga at hotmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Dear Grace APC would definitely give input. I had a good look at it and was alarmed by extensive limitations on free speech and very loose definitions of hate and blasphemous and speech. Also efforts to make intermediaries liable. I am travelling this week but will do my best and ask colleagues for help. AnrietteSent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Grace Githaiga Date: To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) IGC and Bestbits Listers I write to you to seek your views on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014. In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and ISOC-KE, and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and ISOC -Uganda, starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. RgdsGrace Below is the announcement made on the multiple lists. 1. Background to the African Union Convention on Cyber Security (AUCC) African Union (AU) convention (52 page document) seeks to intensify the fight against cybercrime across Africa in light of increase in cybercrime, and a lack of mastery of security risks by African countries. Further, that one challenge for African countries is lack of technological security adequate enough to prevent and effectively control technological and informational risks. As such “African States are in dire need of innovative criminal policy strategies that embody States, societal and technical responses to create a credible legal climate for cyber security”. The Convention establishes a framework for cybersecurity in Africa “through organisation of electronic transactions, protection of personal data, promotion of cyber security, e-governance and combating cybercrime” (Conceptual framework). 2. Division of the Convention Part 1 Electronic transactions Section I: Definition of terms Section II: Electronic Commerce (Fields of application of electronic commerce, Contractual responsibility of the electronic provider of goods and services). Section III: Publicity by electronic means. Section IV: Obligations in electronic form (Electronic contracts, Written matter in electronic form, Ensuring the security of electronic transactions). Part II PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION Section I: Definition Section II: Legal framework for personal data protection (Objectives of this Convention with respect to personal data, Scope of application of the Convention, Preliminary formalities for personal data processing). Section III: Institutional framework for protection of personal data (Status, composition or organization, Functions of the protection authority). Section IV: Obligations relating to the conditions governing the processing of personal data (basic principles governing the processing of personal data, Specific principles governing the processing of sensitive data, Interconnection of personal data files). Section V: The rights of the person whose personal data are to be processed (Right to information, Right of access, Right of opposition, Right of correction or suppression). Section VI: Obligations of the personal data processing official (Confidentiality obligations, Security obligations, Conservation obligations, Sustainability obligations). PART III – PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AND COMBATING CYBERCRIME Section 1: Terminology, National cyber security framework, Legislative measures, National cyber security system, National cyber security monitoring structures). Section II: Material penal law (Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies [Attack on, computerized data, Content related offenses], Adapting certain information and communication technologies offenses). Section II: Criminal liability for corporate persons (Adapting certain sanctions to the Information and Communication Technologies, Other penal sanctions, Procedural law, Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies). PART IV: COMMON AND FINAL PROVISIONS Section I: Monitoring mechanism Section II: Final responses The Proposed Discussion We have picked on articles that need clarity, and would request listers to kindly discuss them and provide recommendations where necessary. Also, where necessary, listers are encouraged to identify and share other articles that need clarifications that we may have left out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Mon Nov 25 15:47:45 2013 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 20:47:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear SureshThe points you raise are very useful and I will put them in our reporting matrix. Further, I copy a message here on the difference between the Budapest and AU Convention as outlined by one SM. It was a response to Jean Paul but it never came onto the list. Lets keep this debate live. RgdsGrace From: SM (sm at resistor.net) To: Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA, Grace Githaiga Cc: internetgovtech at iab.org Hi Jean Paul, At 21:54 24-11-2013, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: >Thank you Grace for sharing those updates about the African Union >Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) >Just last week ( 21 and 22 November 2013) , the National >Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of Burundi ( I am burundian >based in Burundi) has conducted a sensitisation workshop about the >issue of cybersecurity. The (European) Convention on Cybercrime is different from the (African Union) draft convention on the confidence and security in cyberspace. The former is somewhat about computer-related offences, content-related offences and offences related to infringements of copyright and related rights. As a quick note, it seems that the draft convention tries to cover consumer protection, intellectual property rights, personal data and information systems. It is a bit odd to mix all that with legislation to tackle activities which are legislated as criminal activities. The differences between the convention and this draft convention are that the latter: - tries to solve the spam problem - includes electronic transaction - includes a legal framework for personal data protection The scope of the draft convention is broad. The draft convention does not have any text about lawful interception. That can be used to address the problems the draft convention attempts to solve. The drawback is that it might entail less personal data protection. Regards, -sm To: ggithaiga at hotmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org From: suresh at hserus.net Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 06:58:01 +0530 Subject: Re: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Hi Grace About I8 to I10 as I have worked extensively on spam at a technical and policy level since the late 90s I8 : This is a convention and not an international law. It provides a criterion that nations in the American will commit to harmonize their current (or more likely proposed, in large parts of Africa) to be uniform on this and other provisions. In this case, it advocates transparency in direct marketing offers which is a best practice I9 : this is an optin law, which is respectful of user privacy and doesn't allow the sending of unsolicited bulk email, which is the canonical definition of spam. This should not restrict itself to marketing but cover other sorts of bulk mail sent by other organizations or individuals. The law should be content neutral and cover all forms of unsolicited bulk email rather than just marketing mail. I10 : this is a standard prior business relationship exception to make compliance simpler The articles also need to additionally cover criminal forms of spam as the 419 scam, phishing etc. They additionally need to specify penalties both for the organization that commissioned the spam and the marketing agency they contracted with to actually send the spam. Specific language that would be appropriate is in the Australian spam act of 2003 and in the proposed Canadian antispam law, both of which were drafted after open, consultative and multistakeholder processes in the respective countries, including inputs from respected privacy groups. Before that, data protection and net anonymity have to be carefully balanced to log data but retain it under strict controls and regulation of how it can be used (in accordance with privacy regulations). If you legislate blanket anonymity then scam artists and cybercriminals will extensively abuse it to remain undetected. These are a first set of thoughts --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Grace Githaiga" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 3:30 AM IGC and Bestbits Listers I write to you to seek your views on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014. In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and ISOC-KE, and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and ISOC -Uganda, starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. RgdsGrace Below is the announcement made on the multiple lists. 1. Background to the African Union Convention on Cyber Security (AUCC) African Union (AU) convention (52 page document) seeks to intensify the fight against cybercrime across Africa in light of increase in cybercrime, and a lack of mastery of security risks by African countries. Further, that one challenge for African countries is lack of technological security adequate enough to prevent and effectively control technological and informational risks. As such “African States are in dire need of innovative criminal policy strategies that embody States, societal and technical responses to create a credible legal climate for cyber security”. The Convention establishes a framework for cybersecurity in Africa “through organisation of electronic transactions, protection of personal data, promotion of cyber security, e-governance and combating cybercrime” (Conceptual framework). 2. Division of the Convention Part 1 Electronic transactions Section I: Definition of terms Section II: Electronic Commerce (Fields of application of electronic commerce, Contractual responsibility of the electronic provider of goods and services). Section III: Publicity by electronic means. Section IV: Obligations in electronic form (Electronic contracts, Written matter in electronic form, Ensuring the security of electronic transactions). Part II PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION Section I: Definition Section II: Legal framework for personal data protection (Objectives of this Convention with respect to personal data, Scope of application of the Convention, Preliminary formalities for personal data processing). Section III: Institutional framework for protection of personal data (Status, composition or organization, Functions of the protection authority). Section IV: Obligations relating to the conditions governing the processing of personal data (basic principles governing the processing of personal data, Specific principles governing the processing of sensitive data, Interconnection of personal data files). Section V: The rights of the person whose personal data are to be processed (Right to information, Right of access, Right of opposition, Right of correction or suppression). Section VI: Obligations of the personal data processing official (Confidentiality obligations, Security obligations, Conservation obligations, Sustainability obligations). PART III – PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AND COMBATING CYBERCRIME Section 1: Terminology, National cyber security framework, Legislative measures, National cyber security system, National cyber security monitoring structures). Section II: Material penal law (Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies [Attack on, computerized data, Content related offenses], Adapting certain information and communication technologies offenses). Section II: Criminal liability for corporate persons (Adapting certain sanctions to the Information and Communication Technologies, Other penal sanctions, Procedural law, Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies). PART IV: COMMON AND FINAL PROVISIONS Section I: Monitoring mechanism Section II: Final responses The Proposed Discussion We have picked on articles that need clarity, and would request listers to kindly discuss them and provide recommendations where necessary. Also, where necessary, listers are encouraged to identify and share other articles that need clarifications that we may have left out. Day 1 Monday 25/ 11/2013 We begin with Part 1 on Electronic transactions and pick on four articles which we will discuss on Monday (25/11) and Tuesday (26/11). Section III: Publicity by electronic means Article I – 7: Without prejudice to Article I-4 any advertising action, irrespective of its form, accessible through online communication service, shall be clearly identified as such. It shall clearly identify the individual or corporate body on behalf of whom it is undertaken. Question: Should net anonymity be legislated? If so, what measures need to be or not be considered? Question: Should individuals or companies be obliged to reveal their identities and what are the implications? Article I – 8: The conditions governing the possibility of promotional offers as well as the conditions for participating in promotional competitions or games where such offers, competitions or games are electronically disseminated, shall be clearly spelt out and easily accessible. Question: Should an international (or should we call it regional) law legislate on promotional offers and competitions offered locally? Day 2 Tuesday 26/11/13 Article I – 9: Direct marketing through any form of indirect communication including messages forwarded with automatic message sender, facsimile or electronic mails in whatsoever form, using the particulars of an individual who has not given prior consent to receiving the said direct marketing through the means indicated, shall be prohibited by the member states of the African Union. Article I – 10: The provisions of Article I – 9 above notwithstanding, direct marketing prospection by electronic mails shall be permissible where: 1) The particulars of the addressee have been obtained directly from him/her, 2) The recipient has given consent to be contacted by the prospector partners 3) The direct prospection concerns similar products or services provided by the same individual or corporate body. Question: Is this a realistic way of dealing with spam? Article I – 27 Where the legislative provisions of Member States have not laid down other provisions, and where there is no valid agreement between the parties, the judge shall resolve proof related conflicts by determining by all possible means the most plausible claim regardless of the message base employed. Question: What is the meaning of this article and is it necessary? Some clarity needed! Day 3 Wednesday 27 /11/13 Today, we move onto PART II: PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION and will deal with three questions. Objectives of this Convention with respect to personal data Article II – 2: Each Member State of the African Union shall put in place a legal framework with a view to establishing a mechanism to combat breaches of private life likely to arise from the gathering, processing, transmission, storage and use of personal data. The mechanism so established shall ensure that any data processing, in whatsoever form, respects the freedoms and fundamental rights of physical persons while recognizing the prerogatives of the State, the rights of local communities and the target for which the businesses were established. Question: What is the relevance of this article? What are these state prerogatives? And given the increased interest of state surveillance, how can states balance respect of FOE while recognising state prerogatives? Article II-6, II-7, 11-8, II-11, II-12, II-13 refer to a Protection Authority which is meant to establish standards for data protection. Article II – 14 provides for each Member State of the African Union to establish an authority with responsibility to protect personal data. It shall be an independent administrative authority with the task of ensuring that the processing of personal data is conducted in accordance with domestic legislations. In article II-17 states that ‘Sworn agents may be invited to participate in audit missions in accordance with extant provisions in Member States of the African Union’. Question: Considering that this article seems to be tied to the Protection Authority, what is its relevance? And who is a ‘sworn agent?’ What should this authority look like in terms of its composition? Article II – 20: …Members of the protection authority shall not receive instructions from any authority in the exercise of their functions. Article II – 21: Member States are engaged to provide the national protection authority human, technical and financial resources necessary to accomplish their mission. Question: It appears that this Data Protection Authority is envisaged to be fully government supported. Therefore, should we be talking of its independence? In what way should this article be framed so that it ensures independence of the Authority? Article II – 28 to II-34 outlines six principles governing the processing of personal data namely: Consent and of legitimacy, Honesty, Objective, relevance and conservation of processed personal data, Accuracy, Transparency and Confidentiality and security of personal data. Under each of the specific principles, detailed explanation of how each should be undertaken is offered. Question: Is this explanation and detailing of how to undertake each necessary in an international (regional) law necessary or needed? Is this legislation overkill? Day 4 Thursdsay 28/11/2013 Part III Day 4 will focus on PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AND COMBATING CYBERCRIME Article III – 14: Harmonization 1) Member States have to undertake necessary measures to ensure that the legislative measures and / or regulations adopted to fight against cybercrime enhance the possibility of regional harmonization of these measures and respect the principle of double criminality. Question: What is the principle of double criminality here? Section II: Other penal sanctions Article III – 48 Each Member State of the African Union have to take necessary legislative measures to ensure that, in the case of conviction for an offense committed by means of digital communication facility, the competent jurisdiction or the judge handling the case gives a ruling imposing additional punishment. Question: What is the interpretation of additional punishment? Is this not granting of absolute powers to judges? Day Five 29/11/2013 This will be dedicated to any other issue(s)that listers may want to raise in regard to the Convention. Further, listers can go back to issues of any other day and discuss them here. Are there other articles that you would like to share that need clarification? What other issue(s) would you like to raise? References DRAFT AFRICAN UNION CONVENTION ON THE CONFIDENCE AND SECURITY IN CYBERSPACEhttp://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf http://daucc.wordpress.com/ http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/262/148/817/ http://daucc.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/paper-review-basic-drawbacks-of-the-draft-african-union-convention-on-the-confidence-and-security-in-cyberspace/ http://michaelmurungi.blogspot.com/2012/08/comments-on-draft-african-union.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 nb at bollow.ch Mon Nov 25 16:02:48 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 22:02:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance Message-ID: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> Dear all From Carlos Afonso I have learned that it would be valuable at the present stage for civil society networks like the IGC to make statements in regard to the planned Global Multistakeholder Meeting aiming at ensuring that the process will be a genuinely open (in particular to all kinds of civil society perspectives) multistakeholder process -- similar to what APC has already emphasized in a recent statement. I've set up a pad with an initial draft: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil2014-process-objectives This initial text has been very significantly inspired by (and in some parts in fact copied verbatim from) the relevant parts of APC's statement (if these parts of the statement end up going through the IGC consensus process unchanged, we should probably give explicit credit in some way.) Here's a copy of this initial draft text: --snip----------------------------------------------------------------- Statement of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance As an international civil society network that has emerged from the WSIS process, the Internet Governance Caucus sees the planned Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance as a huge opportunity. In order for this opportunity to be fully utilized and not wasted, we urge the organizers to base the Global Meeting on a democratic deliberative process. In particular, * Transparent, open, inclusive and participatory mechanisms must be established for the involvement of the widest possible variety of stakeholders, in the planning and organisation of the summit, from its inception, both in regard to issues of processes and substance. * Participation in the meeting should be linked to an online consultation process similar to the one successfully employed by Brazilian government and society to draft the “Marco Civil”, and in the selection of participants preference should be given to people and institutions who have participated actively in this online process through making written submissions. This should be the case for all the stakeholders, including governments. * Drafting groups responsible for capturing outputs should be appointed prior to the event, and include representatives from a wide variety of stakeholder groups. The Global Meeting should be focused on creating, through accountable and transparent processes, concrete outcome documents in these two main areas: 1) Internationalisation of ICANN and IANA: The Global Meeting should aim at develping a concrete solution how the desired internationalization can be achieved. 2) An international set of principles (or a civil framework) for internet policy making that are fully harmonised with existing human rights agreements, especially in regard to ensuring in the context of Internet communications and cloud computing that any exceptions to the "right to privacy" and "right to anonymity" principles are necessary and proportionate. --snap----------------------------------------------------------------- Are you in support of IGC making such a statement? Do you see needs for changes? 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 mueller at syr.edu Mon Nov 25 16:41:16 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:41:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257073F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> George Normally I would be very much in favor of shifting attention to issues and substantive proposals. But in the present context, that constitutes a diversion from the real problem at hand. The preparations for the Brazil conference have pushed representational issues to the fore. Specifically, we have an entity called 1net that has been given the authority to appoint half of the members of the steering committees for the conference, and which has also promised that a fixed number of slots on these steering committees will be given to specific stakeholder groups. Because these steering committees will control the agenda of the conference, and hence will be in de facto control of our discussion of substantive issues at the Sao Paulo conference, it behooves even those of us exclusively interested in substantive issues to pay attention to the composition of those committees. In particular, the coordinating committee of 1net itself needs to be settled. Get that done, and yes, we can start to focus on substantive issues. --MM From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 12:38 PM To: Deirdre Williams Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein michael; Peter Ian; bestbits; Akplogan Adiel A.; Swinehart Theresa; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org; i-coordination at nro.net; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Subject: Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment Deirdre, and all, Thank you, Deirdre. I take your point that we should consider shifting the focus to issue-based discussions and away from stakeholder membership-based discussions. That is a very good way to phrase it. (Note that accepting such a shift does not imply that it should replace all other stakeholder membership activities.) Where should we have these issue-based discussions? There have been a number of good and provocative responses to what I wrote below, and I really don't know where to post them and my reactions to them. How can we get these conversations started in a productive and inclusive manner? We now have four relevant lists that I know of, and here may well be more: - the IGC list, - the BestBits list, - the ISOC policy list, and - the new 1Net coordination list. Many of us subscribe to some or all of these list, and therefore see the same posting more than once. I subscribe to all four of the above. With some trepidation, I'm going to post this message on all of the above lists, with the hope that we can converge on an acceptable solution. [I have trimmed some early postings below that led to this point in the discussion.] I myself would favor the 1net list, simply because it is new and meant to be all-inclusive specifically for this purpose, whereas other lists may be (I think) somewhat restrictive and more focused and used for other purposes also. If you respond to this, please consider trimming the response significantly, since the content below will have been posted to all of the four lists. IMO the question to be answered is: on which list, or using which vehicle, can we collect broad involvement in issue-based threads that have to do with aspects of Internet governance? If we can converge on an answer, then we'll eliminate some redundancy and we'll have a more inclusive and more positive discussion of issues. If the redundancy is felt to be useful, then we can keep it; it's agreement on the focal point that's important here. Comments? Suggestions? Criticisms? George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Nov 25, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by Michael Gurstein Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment begun by George Sadowsky. Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues? In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point was made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at a recent workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his children also query the speed of the Internet at home when they have to do their homework. The only people excluded from civil society are incarcerated prisoners, and that also is a statement that can be questioned. If I understand him correctly George Sadowsky is making the same point. Civil society is us - all of us. Instead of trying to disentangle the stakeholders from one another could we try to reach agreement on the aspects of the issues? If no one is wearing any particular hat then it should be possible to obtain a clearer picture of the issues that need to be discussed, and the multiple aspects of those issues. Surely at least a part of the "multistakeholder" configuration of WSIS was to provide a means of identifying and harnessing the different types of expertise available, to tackle the different aspects of the challenges created by the Internet and its proliferation. In hindsight the intention must have been partially collaboration and cooperation. Sadly the focus shifted to a third "c" - competition - so that instead of team-powered problem solving we ended up with separation and power struggles. And now on top of that comes betrayal and the death of trust. And the "little people" the "grassroots" become even further excluded from discussion of the interests that affect them, washed out in a wave of personalities and accusations. We do not need to let this breakdown continue. We CAN work together, we've done it before. Trust can be rebuilt. It is a hard slow process, but each of us retains threads of trust which we consider still to be viable. Otherwise we would not be communicating at all. Weave these threads together and we can build something stronger than what existed before, because we will be depending on one another instead of on abstract external factors. And together we will be able to disaggregate the issues into their component aspects and negotiate a point of balance among the differing needs of government, technicians, business and society. Deirdre On 24 November 2013 12:59, George Sadowsky > wrote: All, Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated. <> So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if any of them resonate with any of you. First, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns. As I recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits. The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize. Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined. Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered. Second, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood. At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels. In order to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating about them. That function may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long term, or both. In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it is extremely important. Third, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating groups of ideas. A couple of examples illustrate the point. To the extent that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage their participation. Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on inter-stakeholder group separation. Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, I conclude that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects of that approach. This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I realize that what I have written, and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas that I think may be useful. The more nuanced discussion can and will come later. Your comments are welcome. George <> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 17:56:57 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:56:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Request for input on civil society representatives for the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" Message-ID: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> Dear all, there is now an informal coordination group of some kind (tentatively called "steering committee", although I expect that that name will probably be changed) consisting of Anriette Esterhuysen for APC, Jeremy Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for NCSG, Virginia Paque for DIPLO, myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as facilitator. The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society representation on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" organized by ICANN [1]. [1] http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional civil society people for this panel. The following names have been suggested so far: Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you wish to be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow Tuesday which is about 24 hours from now.) 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Nov 25 19:18:22 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 22:18:22 -0200 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: <5292D9C9.6090608@ciroap.org> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <5292D9C9.6090608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I agree with much Jeremy said, while, at the same time, I completely agree with George’s suggestion to strengthen bridges with the technical community. The conditions for that are created and we should definitely seize this moment.Thanks, George, for taking this first step and offering to help with communication. There are some points I would like to make concerning your first message, though. In the 1990’s many people still believed on the “independence of cyberspace”. This tale has gradually faded: it is possible to intervene on cyberspace, for the good and for the bad. This has engendered reactions in two levels. On the ideological level, libertarian mindsets have been uneasy, because they are uneasy with State regulatory intervention in general, while people of other political colors believed that regulation is necessary to promote equality and development. These two different views (depicted here in very rough terms) are very difficult to reconcile in any political debate. It would not be different in Internet Governance, despite our best efforts. On the practical level, some actors, have the ability to play in several regulatory chess-boards and reacted to what they saw as a “normative inflation” or a "power grab attempt" by creating their own regulation through market forces, through code, through network architecture. I refer to the business and the technical community (of course, I am talking about companies with market power here, or to business that resort to collective action). And here lies a fundamental difference of power vis-à-vis civil society. While civil society capabilities mostly rely on social mobilization and putting pressure on actors, specially on governments, the technical community and the business sector have more leeway to steer things on a more favorable direction, sometimes even ignoring the trends in the public debate. Regulation through code and architecture can also be very opaque and unaccountable as we know. Maybe this is one of the reasons why the business sector and the technical community, during a considerable part of the history of IG, have been more aligned among themselves in terms of political positions then they have been with civil society. And for many years their position was very defensive of the status quo of the regime. Of course, now recent events have shown the limits of this political option. So I would agree with Jeremy: it was not the existence of different stakeholder groups that created separation, the reasons were more deep than that, and if we want to strengthen the bridges, the first thing to do is to recognize that. My critique to how multistaleholderism has been put in place in actually a different one: because we avoided answering the question of what the roles of different stakeholder groups were, we ended up forgetting that the justification for their participation at the table is naturally different. Just like companies cannot draft treaties, civil society cannot ensure innovation. Different topics call for different configurations of decision-making procedures and multistakeholder participation cannot mean that everybody is equal all the time, for any topic, in any phase of discussion. The day we are free to talk about that in a mature way without being accused of being against MSism we will probably unblock some institutional discussions. Lastly, while I take the point that in the end we are all internet users and part of society, some of us are now "serving" as civil society "militants" (sorry, I lack better words) while others are politically active in other sectors, which is absolutely fine. Saying that we are all civil society politically dilutes it and I think we should not do it, even with the positive goal of reaching more proximity and understanding. Having said that, I need to mention again that the world is different, the IG regime is changing fast and I do think that positions are converging (although it is too early to say they are one). Many people across all stakeholder groups think that we need improvement, that we need a set of clear principles and that we need more respect for human rights. I think that 1net gives us the possibility to continue in this process of approximation and allow us to coordinate to the important discussions to come. That is why I wholeheartedly wish that this platform succeeds as a way for coordination, not only for the Brazilian meeting, but also beyond. And any one that would like to help, as bridge, broker or communicator between stakeholder groups would have my support. Best wishes Marília On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 25/11/13 00:59, George Sadowsky wrote: > > *Fourth*, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil > society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by > the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing > organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the > importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent > civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to > populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are > generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back > against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. > Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that > tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging > groups instead of being siloed. > > > (Since the above was reposted from an ISOC list, I'm just reposting the > reply that I sent there.) > > More importantly that tension reflects real power differences between the > groups overall, not just the fact that they have been divided into silos, > as if that had created an artificial rivalry like between football teams. > Civil society does not push back for the sake of pushing back. We do so in > response to the misuse of power against the interests of the powerless. > > Whilst I agree with you that civil society should extend beyond organised > civil society, the latter can't be dismissed or sidelined on the basis that > it is somehow separated from the rest. We are connected to people at > large, even though it is not always through representative structures > (though it often is, as in the case of my organisation and its members), > but also through research and project work. > > So when broad segments of (organised) civil society may seem at times to > be critical of the (organised) technical community this is not general > antagonism, but a response to specific positions that the technical > community has consistently taken that we perceive as against the broader > public interest. Its long-standing opposition to reforms to Internet > governance arrangements is an example case of this. > > Now, when suddenly the sands have shifted, and some of the leading > organisations of the technical community are now more receptive to > significant Internet governance reforms, it shouldn't be that we are the > ones being criticised for our caution about your latest bridging cum > advocacy initiatives (like 1net). After all, we are not the ones who have > shifted our position! > > In the long run, I do agree that it would be great if the non-governmental > and non-private sector technical community could be merged back into > mainstream civil society for purposes of representation in Internet > governance processes, but this can't be forced. There needs to be good > faith shown on all sides, along with willingness to compromise, and a > letting go of the reins. > > PS. For time management reasons, I will be neither reading nor replying to > email from Tuesday to Friday. Apologies in advance for any inconvenience. > > -- > > > > *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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 20:09:38 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 06:39:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <5292D9C9.6090608@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <918A87AF-3C14-46F7-8E86-B7866E8311C0@hserus.net> Militants is such an apt word when people are more focused on blowing up bridges rather than building them. Perfectly fine to have some level of differentiation, but wrong to exclude and build walls so that communities are alienated from each other. --srs (iPad) > On 26-Nov-2013, at 5:48, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Lastly, while I take the point that in the end we are all internet users and part of society, some of us are now "serving" as civil society "militants" (sorry, I lack better words) while others are politically active in other sectors, which is absolutely fine. Saying that we are all civil society politically dilutes it and I think we should not do it, even with the positive goal of reaching more proximity and understanding. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Nov 25 20:15:39 2013 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:15:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Request for input on civil society representatives for the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" In-Reply-To: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> Message-ID: How about adding any one (or more) of: Judy Okite Grace Githaiga Anju Mangal Nnenna Nwakanma To the list for consideration? ------ Rgds, Tracy On Nov 25, 2013 6:58 PM, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: > Dear all, > > there is now an informal coordination group of some kind (tentatively > called "steering committee", although I expect that that name will > probably be changed) consisting of Anriette Esterhuysen for APC, Jeremy > Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for NCSG, Virginia Paque for DIPLO, > myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as facilitator. > > The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society representation > on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" organized by > ICANN [1]. > > [1] > > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html > > The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional civil > society people for this panel. > > The following names have been suggested so far: > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, > Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. > > In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you wish to > be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow Tuesday which > is about 24 hours from now.) > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Nov 25 20:18:16 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 06:48:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75A2430A-8030-450F-A3C0-5348F7B0A935@hserus.net> I would agree with SM that there are sections on data protection, copyright bolted on, and electronic transaction security / spam are specifically referenced here rather than implied in the Budapest convention (where it is quite possible to have inter agency cooperation across countries to arrest a criminal spammer, and this has happened in the past) This is more due to the unique needs of africa I would say. When you have a convention you need enabling legislation around it, which if it does not exist, has all to be drafted from scratch, and hopefully drafted so as to be harmonized with the laws drafted in other signatories to the convention. What differences SM pointed out are related to this different maturity level of the laws in various African countries, --srs (iPad) > On 26-Nov-2013, at 2:17, Grace Githaiga wrote: > > Dear Suresh > The points you raise are very useful and I will put them in our reporting matrix. > Further, I copy a message here on the difference between the Budapest and AU Convention as outlined by one SM. It was a response to Jean Paul but it never came onto the list. > > Lets keep this debate live. > > Rgds > Grace > > > From: SM (sm at resistor.net) > > To: Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA, Grace Githaiga > > Cc: internetgovtech at iab.org > > > Hi Jean Paul, > At 21:54 24-11-2013, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: > >Thank you Grace for sharing those updates about the African Union > >Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) > >Just last week ( 21 and 22 November 2013) , the National > >Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of Burundi ( I am burundian > >based in Burundi) has conducted a sensitisation workshop about the > >issue of cybersecurity. > > The (European) Convention on Cybercrime is different from the > (African Union) draft convention on the confidence and security in > cyberspace. The former is somewhat about computer-related offences, > content-related offences and offences related to infringements of > copyright and related rights. As a quick note, it seems that the > draft convention tries to cover consumer protection, intellectual > property rights, personal data and information systems. It is a bit > odd to mix all that with legislation to tackle activities which are > legislated as criminal activities. > > The differences between the convention and this draft convention are > that the latter: > > - tries to solve the spam problem > > - includes electronic transaction > > - includes a legal framework for personal data protection > > The scope of the draft convention is broad. The draft convention > does not have any text about lawful interception. That can be used > to address the problems the draft convention attempts to solve. The > drawback is that it might entail less personal data protection. > > Regards, > -sm > > To: ggithaiga at hotmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > From: suresh at hserus.net > Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 06:58:01 +0530 > Subject: Re: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) > > Hi Grace > > About I8 to I10 as I have worked extensively on spam at a technical and policy level since the late 90s > > I8 : This is a convention and not an international law. It provides a criterion that nations in the American will commit to harmonize their current (or more likely proposed, in large parts of Africa) to be uniform on this and other provisions. In this case, it advocates transparency in direct marketing offers which is a best practice > > I9 : this is an optin law, which is respectful of user privacy and doesn't allow the sending of unsolicited bulk email, which is the canonical definition of spam. This should not restrict itself to marketing but cover other sorts of bulk mail sent by other organizations or individuals. The law should be content neutral and cover all forms of unsolicited bulk email rather than just marketing mail. > > I10 : this is a standard prior business relationship exception to make compliance simpler > > The articles also need to additionally cover criminal forms of spam as the 419 scam, phishing etc. > > They additionally need to specify penalties both for the organization that commissioned the spam and the marketing agency they contracted with to actually send the spam. > > Specific language that would be appropriate is in the Australian spam act of 2003 and in the proposed Canadian antispam law, both of which were drafted after open, consultative and multistakeholder processes in the respective countries, including inputs from respected privacy groups. > > Before that, data protection and net anonymity have to be carefully balanced to log data but retain it under strict controls and regulation of how it can be used (in accordance with privacy regulations). If you legislate blanket anonymity then scam artists and cybercriminals will extensively abuse it to remain undetected. > > These are a first set of thoughts > > --srs (htc one x) > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Grace Githaiga" > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) > Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 3:30 AM > > IGC and Bestbits Listers > I write to you to seek your views on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf > KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014. > In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and > ISOC-KE, and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT > Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) > and ISOC -Uganda, starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. RgdsGrace > Below is the announcement made on the multiple lists. > > > > 1. Background to the African Union > Convention on Cyber Security (AUCC) > > African Union (AU) convention (52 page document) seeks to > intensify the fight against cybercrime across Africa in light of increase in > cybercrime, and a lack of mastery of security risks by African countries. > Further, that one challenge for African countries is lack of technological > security adequate enough to prevent and effectively control technological > and informational risks. As such “African States are in dire need of innovative > criminal policy strategies that embody States, societal and technical responses > to create a credible legal climate for cyber security”. > > The Convention establishes a framework for cybersecurity in > Africa “through organisation of electronic transactions, protection of personal > data, promotion of cyber security, e-governance and combating cybercrime” > (Conceptual framework). > > > > 2. Division of the Convention > > Part 1 > > Electronic transactions > > Section I: > Definition > of terms > > Section II: > Electronic > Commerce (Fields of application of electronic commerce, Contractual > responsibility of the electronic provider of goods and services). > > Section III: > Publicity by electronic > means. > > Section IV: > Obligations in electronic form > (Electronic contracts, Written matter in electronic form, Ensuring the security > of electronic transactions). > > > > Part II PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION > > Section I: > Definition > > Section II: > Legal framework > for personal data protection (Objectives of this Convention with respect to > personal data, Scope of application of the Convention, Preliminary formalities > for personal data processing). > > Section III: > Institutional framework > for protection of personal data (Status, composition or organization, Functions > of the protection authority). > > Section IV: > Obligations relating to the > conditions governing the processing of personal data (basic principles > governing the processing of personal data, Specific principles governing the > processing of sensitive data, Interconnection of > personal data files). > > Section V: > The rights of the > person whose personal data are to be processed (Right to information, Right of > access, Right of opposition, Right of correction or suppression). > > Section VI: > Obligations of the personal > data processing official (Confidentiality obligations, Security obligations, > Conservation obligations, Sustainability obligations). > > > > PART III – PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AND COMBATING CYBERCRIME > > Section 1: > Terminology, > National cyber security framework, Legislative measures, National cyber > security system, National cyber security monitoring structures). > > Section II: > Material penal law > (Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies [Attack on, > computerized data, Content related offenses], Adapting certain information and > communication technologies offenses). > > Section II: > Criminal liability > for corporate persons (Adapting certain sanctions to the Information and > Communication Technologies, Other penal sanctions, Procedural law, Offenses specific to > Information and Communication Technologies). > > > > PART IV: COMMON AND FINAL PROVISIONS > > Section I: > Monitoring > mechanism > > Section II: > Final responses > > > > The Proposed Discussion > > We have picked on articles that need clarity, and would > request listers to kindly discuss them and provide recommendations where > necessary. Also, where > necessary, listers are encouraged to identify and share other articles that > need clarifications that we may have left out. > > > > Day 1 Monday 25/ 11/2013 > > We begin with Part 1 on Electronic transactions and pick on > four articles which we will discuss on Monday (25/11) and Tuesday (26/11). > > Section III: Publicity by electronic means > > Article I – 7: > > Without prejudice to Article I-4 any advertising > action, irrespective of its form, accessible through online communication service, > shall be clearly identified as such. It shall clearly identify the individual > or corporate body on behalf of whom it is undertaken. > > Question: Should net > anonymity be legislated? If > so, what measures need to be or not be considered? > > Question: Should > individuals or companies be obliged to reveal their identities and what are the > implications? > > > > Article I – 8: > > The conditions governing the possibility of promotional > offers as well as the conditions for participating in promotional > competitions or games where such offers, competitions or games are > electronically disseminated, shall be clearly spelt out and easily accessible. > > Question: Should an international (or should we > call it regional) law legislate on promotional offers and competitions > offered locally? > > > > Day 2 Tuesday 26/11/13 > > Article I – 9: > > Direct marketing through any form of > indirect communication including messages forwarded with automatic message > sender, facsimile or electronic mails in whatsoever form, using the particulars > of an individual who has not given prior consent to receiving the said direct > marketing through the means indicated, shall be prohibited by the member states > of the African Union. > > Article I – 10: > > The provisions of Article I – 9 above > notwithstanding, direct marketing prospection by electronic mails shall be > permissible where: > > 1) The particulars of the addressee have been obtained > directly from him/her, > > 2) The recipient has given consent to be contacted by the > prospector partners > > 3) The direct prospection concerns similar products or > services provided by the same individual or corporate body. > > Question: Is this a realistic way of dealing with spam? > > Article I – 27 > > Where the legislative provisions of Member States have not > laid down other provisions, and where there is no valid agreement between the > parties, the judge shall resolve proof related conflicts by determining by all > possibl > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 25 21:01:27 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:01:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Request for input on civil society representatives for the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" In-Reply-To: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> Message-ID: Dear All, I will have to take a different view to Norbert. Yes, there are seats for the steering committee that is expected to be filled by civil society. There was a suggestion by some that the seats be filled by a representative from a civil society group, however, there is no consensus on this yet. Personal Recommendations for IGC Nominees to the Steering Committee I am recommending that we as the IGC propose to co- select our representative onto this Steering committee and they do not have to be coordinators or leaders of the organisation but able to bring their expertise, and foresight into the steering committee and to consciously and constantly update us on developments in that space. To this end, I am thinking of two people namely: 1)Anriette E who is in the IGC and also from APC; 2)Vladmir R who is from Diplo; My suggestion is to get Anriette and Vladmir to represent the IGC and their respective organisations in the Steering Committee. They are willing to be nominated by the IGC. How does the rest of the IGC feel about supporting these two for the Steering Committee? I feel that the coordinators need to focus their energy into more immediate priorities. This will include providing support to the incoming co-coordinator, preparing the community to submit consolidated submissions for the Brazil meeting and many other things. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Nov 25, 2013, at 5:56 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Dear all, > > there is now an informal coordination group of some kind (tentatively > called "steering committee", although I expect that that name will > probably be changed) consisting of Anriette Esterhuysen for APC, Jeremy > Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for NCSG, Virginia Paque for DIPLO, > myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as facilitator. > > The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society representation > on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" organized by > ICANN [1]. > > [1] > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html > > The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional civil > society people for this panel. > > The following names have been suggested so far: > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, > Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. > > In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you wish to > be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow Tuesday which > is about 24 hours from now.) > > 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 nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Mon Nov 25 23:48:34 2013 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 04:48:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Reporting template for Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1385441314.19915.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Thank you Grace, I am really getting good information about the AUCC with this discussion. Regards   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 Le Lundi 25 novembre 2013 22h32, Grace Githaiga a écrit : Thanks Jean Paul for the update on the cybersecurity sensitization workshop in Burundi.  Suresh has answered your query on the Budapest Convention. Thanks Suresh. My response to your other two questions: 1. Who are the drafters of that Convention? This has been drafted by the African Union Commission.  2. How are African states involved? Which services at country level are involved? The information that African governments were involved though it is not clear at what level i.e. whether it is from the point of conceptualization, or after the draft had been developed. However, this is a question I will include in our reporting template and hope that AUC will provide us with the information on the process.  I attach our reporting template. Once again, thank you so much and do keep this debate going. Rgds Grace ________________________________ To: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; ggithaiga at hotmail.com From: suresh at hserus.net Subject: Re: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:59:25 +0530 It does appear that the au convention on a quick superficial reading does not substantially conflict with the Budapest convention.  The advantage of joining the Budapest convention is harmonizing your local law with those of several countries around the world and also joining a network of mlats that make it easier for you to pursue cybercrime cases where the offender lives in another country that is a signatory to the convention.  --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Grace Githaiga" , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 11:24 AM Hi all, Thank you Grace for sharing those updates about the  African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Just last week ( 21 and 22 November 2013) , the National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of Burundi  ( I am burundian based in Burundi) has conducted a sensitisation workshop about the issue of cybersecurity. This workshop is the first step towards the drafting the cybersecurity law for Burundi.  I attended it as a member of ISOC Burundi chapter. Speaking about international legal frameworks about cyber security, the invited expert raised the Budapest Convetion. Representatives of the regulatory authority said they were not aware of this convetion. I made an intervention and raised the fact that AU is drafting another convention. Then, we had some discussions : the advantages and disadvantages for a country like Burundi to sign the Budapest Convention, .... Allow me to ask some questions : Who are the drafters of that convention ? How are African states involved ? Which services at country level are involved ? My problem is that African countries may seek to sign the Budapest Convention and ignoring the AUCC. Best regards   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 Le Lundi 25 novembre 2013 3h28, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : Hi Grace  About I8 to I10 as I have worked extensively on spam at a technical and policy level since the late 90s  I8 : This is a convention and not an international law. It provides a criterion that nations in the American will commit to harmonize their current (or more likely proposed, in large parts of Africa) to be uniform on this and other provisions. In this case, it advocates transparency in direct marketing offers which is a best practice  I9 : this is an optin law, which is respectful of user privacy and doesn't allow the sending of unsolicited bulk email, which is the canonical definition of spam. This should not restrict itself to marketing but cover other sorts of bulk mail sent by other organizations or individuals. The law should be content neutral and cover all forms of unsolicited bulk email rather than just marketing mail.  I10 : this is a standard prior business relationship exception to make compliance simpler  The articles also need to additionally cover criminal forms of spam as the 419 scam, phishing etc.  They additionally need to specify penalties both for the organization that commissioned the spam and the marketing agency they contracted with to actually send the spam.  Specific language that would be appropriate is in the Australian spam act of 2003 and in the proposed Canadian antispam law, both of which were drafted after open, consultative and multistakeholder processes in the respective countries, including inputs from respected privacy groups.  Before that, data protection and net anonymity have to be carefully balanced to log data but retain it under strict controls and regulation of how it can be used (in accordance with privacy regulations). If you legislate blanket anonymity then scam artists and cybercriminals will extensively abuse it to remain undetected.  These are a first set of thoughts  --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Grace Githaiga" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 3:30 AM IGC and Bestbits Listers I write to you to seek your views on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014. In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and ISOC-KE, and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and ISOC -Uganda, starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. RgdsGrace Below is the announcement ma ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 00:26:12 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:56:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Request for input on civil society representatives for the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" In-Reply-To: References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> Message-ID: <529430F4.2000406@itforchange.net> There is a lot of confusion here, at least in my mind... There is this talk of a high level panel (of ICANN, an entirely private initiative of it but welcome as other such initiatives are) and then Sala speaks of some steering committee... Which steering committee is this? parminder On Tuesday 26 November 2013 07:31 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > I will have to take a different view to Norbert. > > Yes, there are seats for the steering committee that is expected to be filled by civil society. There was a suggestion by some that the seats be filled by a representative from a civil society group, however, there is no consensus on this yet. > > Personal Recommendations for IGC Nominees to the Steering Committee > > I am recommending that we as the IGC propose to co- select our representative onto this Steering committee and they do not have to be coordinators or leaders of the organisation but able to bring their expertise, and foresight into the steering committee and to consciously and constantly update us on developments in that space. To this end, I am thinking of two people namely: > > 1)Anriette E who is in the IGC and also from APC; > 2)Vladmir R who is from Diplo; > > My suggestion is to get Anriette and Vladmir to represent the IGC and their respective organisations in the Steering Committee. They are willing to be nominated by the IGC. How does the rest of the IGC feel about supporting these two for the Steering Committee? > > I feel that the coordinators need to focus their energy into more immediate priorities. This will include providing support to the incoming co-coordinator, preparing the community to submit consolidated submissions for the Brazil meeting and many other things. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Nov 25, 2013, at 5:56 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> there is now an informal coordination group of some kind (tentatively >> called "steering committee", although I expect that that name will >> probably be changed) consisting of Anriette Esterhuysen for APC, Jeremy >> Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for NCSG, Virginia Paque for DIPLO, >> myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as facilitator. >> >> The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society representation >> on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" organized by >> ICANN [1]. >> >> [1] >> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html >> >> The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional civil >> society people for this panel. >> >> The following names have been suggested so far: >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, >> Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. >> >> In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you wish to >> be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow Tuesday which >> is about 24 hours from now.) >> >> 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 nb at bollow.ch Tue Nov 26 02:46:06 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:46:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Request for input on civil society representatives for the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" In-Reply-To: References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> Message-ID: <20131126084606.4e28bcf9@quill> Dave Burstein wrote: > Eben Moglen's presentation of protecting those that reveal what's > going on in four lectures on his website is brilliant. One of the > most inspiring long speeches I've ever heard. > > His position that we must protect Snowden and any others that come > forward very strongly may or may not be going further than some > people here want. I don't know how much I agree with some of it > myself. > > But Eben is brilliantly approaching parts of this issue extremely > eloquently. I agree that it would be very good for Eben Moglen's perspective to be prominently taken into account in these processes aiming at a reform of Internet governance. Alas the newest information seems to be that he is not making himself available for being nominated to the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation", 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Nov 26 02:58:32 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:58:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT In-Reply-To: <1384066968.48757.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1384066968.48757.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1385452712.44293.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear All Fellows at IGC CS. With reference to my self nomination at Diplo Internet Governance Blog, I would require your support for the endorsement to my slef-nomination for IGC CS as well as on Diplo Internet Governance Blog. I also have updated my profile on Diplo Internet Governance Online Blog.  url http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/nomination-for-igf-mag-2014. Please read the Diplo post about the 2014 MAG endorsement process. As per Diplo community recommendations (endorsements) will be calculated using the following criteria: 40% - results of poll   Click here to take the survey. 20% - experience in IG global policy processes, including efforts such as APC, IGC, Diplo discussions, regional work and other work. Please describe these activities in your post  10% - representation from least developed countries  10% - representation from small island states  10% - representation from countries never before represented on the MAG 10% - gender (to support gender balance and more women on the MAG) Initially candidate nominees for IGF MAG would require community support reflection through a Survey/Poll Click here to take the survey. So, would you like to spare few minutes to submit your preference about candidates through this Survey Click here to take the survey. Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah Member Internet Governance Caucus and Best Bits Founding President IGF Pakistan NCUC Member (since 2009) ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) >________________________________ > From: Imran Ahmed Shah >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Jeremy Hunsinger ; Sonigitu Ekpe >Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 12:02 >Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT > > > >Dear All, > > >With reference to the following Call for the Nominations (for IGF MAG), and subsequent messages from Mr Izumi Aizu & Ms Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, I would nominate myself for the IGF MAG. > > >I recently has organized a workshop at AP regional IGF 2013 at Seoul with the title of Governance for the Internet of Kids, Teenagers and Youngsters. Workshop detail & my profile may be find at APrIGF Website (http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-32/ , http://2013.rigf.asia/day3/ and http://2013.rigf.asia/speakers-profiles/#Imran). > > >Further information as mentioned for EOI, I will arrange to submit to the Coordinators and MAG Nomcom. > > >Thanking you and Best Regards > > >Imran Ahmed Shah >Member Internet Governance Caucus >Founding President IGF Pakistan >NCUC Member (since 2009) >ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) > > > >>________________________________ >> From: Sonigitu Ekpe >>To: Jeremy Hunsinger ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 11:59 >>Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT >> >> >> >>I volunteer to serve on the MAG. >>Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >>"Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >>+234 8027510179 >>On Nov 10, 2013 5:37 AM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" wrote: >> >>I can do nomcom >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>>Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: >>>> >>>>Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >>>> >>>> 1. Adame Peake >>>> 2. Ian Peter >>>> 3. Kossi Amessinou >>>>[We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom] >>>> >>>>Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection  can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>>> >>>> 1. Asif Kabani >>>> >>>> 2. Rudi Vansnick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>>Dear All, >>>>> >>>>>Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: >>>>> >>>>>Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >>>>> >>>>> 1. Adame Peake >>>>> 2. Ian Peter >>>>> 3. Kossi Amessinou >>>>>Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection  can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>>>> >>>>> 1. Asif Kabani >>>>> >>>>> 2. Rudi Vansnick >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 07:27:41 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 12:27:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by > Michael Gurstein > Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST > Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society > I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread > Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder > environment > begun by George Sadowsky. > > Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues? > In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point was > made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at a recent > workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his children also query > the speed of the Internet at home when they have to do their homework. The > only people excluded from civil society are incarcerated prisoners, and > that also is a statement that can be questioned. If I understand him > correctly George Sadowsky is making the same point. Civil society is us - > all of us. > Sure! We may declare everybody is CS and expect any institutional policy process to open mike to whoever walks in and requests to speak as CS. From my part, I was working on the basis of assumptions I thought were widely recognized as part of the current landscape --and even an inevitable part. If we want to talk about _multistakeholder_ processes, then we cannot but recognize multiple stakeholders, thus boundaries. If we have set up IGC as a membership structure, then we have necessarily identified criteria for membership, thus boundaries. Mine was an attempt to clarify and even extend those inevitable boundaries (based on our operating assumptions); I didn't participate in creating them and am not necessarily advocating for maintaining or reinforcing them. I can content myself with any other viable way to make my voice and voices of any people with legitimate concerns heard and taken into account. I think I have said all what I had to say on this topic. Thanks, Mawaki > > Instead of trying to disentangle the stakeholders from one another could > we try to reach agreement on the aspects of the issues? If no one is > wearing any particular hat then it should be possible to obtain a clearer > picture of the issues that need to be discussed, and the multiple aspects > of those issues. > > Surely at least a part of the "multistakeholder" configuration of WSIS was > to provide a means of identifying and harnessing the different types of > expertise available, to tackle the different aspects of the challenges > created by the Internet and its proliferation. In hindsight the intention > must have been partially collaboration and cooperation. Sadly the focus > shifted to a third "c" - competition - so that instead of team-powered > problem solving we ended up with separation and power struggles. And now on > top of that comes betrayal and the death of trust. And the "little people" > the "grassroots" become even further excluded from discussion of the > interests that affect them, washed out in a wave of personalities and > accusations. > > We do not need to let this breakdown continue. We CAN work together, we've > done it before. Trust can be rebuilt. It is a hard slow process, but each > of us retains threads of trust which we consider still to be viable. > Otherwise we would not be communicating at all. Weave these threads > together and we can build something stronger than what existed before, > because we will be depending on one another instead of on abstract external > factors. And together we will be able to disaggregate the issues into their > component aspects and negotiate a point of balance among the differing > needs of government, technicians, business and society. > > Deirdre > > > On 24 November 2013 12:59, George Sadowsky wrote: > >> All, >> >> *Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions >> and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated.* >> >> I'm suggesting that we should modify both the words and concept of Sala's >> suggestions and my response. >> >> Let's not think of doing anything formal; I think that both ends would >> balk at that, and for good reason. Instead, I'll just be somewhat more >> active on this list, and if anything comes up with respect to the technical >> community that I can clarify or help with on an informal and personal >> basis, I'll try to do that. >> >> So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if >> any of them resonate with any of you. >> >> *First*, I believe that the introduction of the idea of >> multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect between >> the Internet technical community and the community that has coalesced to >> represent classical civil society concerns. As I recall in the 1990s, >> these communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the >> Internet encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but >> also to explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits. >> >> The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the >> WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize. Issues of >> representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes >> competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while >> informal discussion gradually declined. Polarization of opinion grew as >> willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree >> suffered. >> >> *Second*, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical >> community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the >> MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood. At this point in its >> evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels. In order >> to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with >> Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good >> technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a >> detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the Internet >> technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand >> such effects and to inform those deliberating about them. That function >> may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and >> suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, >> either short or long term, or both. >> >> In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it >> is extremely important. >> >> *Third*, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism >> appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating >> groups of ideas. A couple of examples illustrate the point. To the extent >> that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well >> to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of >> civil society benefit and should encourage their participation. >> Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are >> people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent >> with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. >> The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that >> minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding >> issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of >> recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on >> inter-stakeholder group separation. >> >> *Fourth*, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil >> society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by >> the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing >> organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the >> importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent >> civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to >> populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are >> generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back >> against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. >> Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that >> tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging >> groups instead of being siloed. >> >> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in >> the world and remove government involvement, the private sector >> involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a >> phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains >> fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. >> >> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder >> group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. >> Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector >> organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. >> Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute >> "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in >> the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large >> parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as >> we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is >> likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as >> self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. >> This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are >> really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive >> relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the >> underlying reality, >> >> *I conclude* that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be >> an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative >> externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to assess the >> multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is retained as an >> organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative >> effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects >> of that approach. >> >> This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me >> to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic >> relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and >> technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank >> you for taking the time to read it. I realize that what I have written, >> and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have >> presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas >> that I think may be useful. The more nuanced discussion can and will come >> later. >> >> Your comments are welcome. >> >> George >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> On Nov 23, 2013, at 1:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> Thanks George and it is a potentially interesting proposition. >> >> But I must say that I’m unclear as to precisely what role is being >> suggested here. If the role is to attempt to frame the diversity of voices >> being articulated in civil society (in my case including those of the >> community informatics community for example) in a manner in which it can be >> more readily understood/assimilated/responded to by the technical community >> I think that is very useful. >> >> If it is, on the other hand, to act as a more or less >> “authoritative”/designated “filter” of communications/voices from Civil >> Society to the Technical Community then I can see quite considerable >> difficulty and controversy resulting, if nothing else, from a concern >> within certain CS elements of being “silenced/ignored”. >> >> (The same clarification would need to be made if the role is perceived as >> being more of an “honest broker”—i.e. the question being, particularly on >> the CS side, how inclusive of all CS interests/voices is the “brokerage” >> committed/able to be. >> >> Perhaps some clarification is in order here either from yourself in how >> you perceive the role, or from Ian or Sala on how they presented the role >> (and perceive it from a CS perspective). >> >> (I should also possibly add here that a significant number of those >> active in the Community Informatics community would, by their background, >> qualifications, experience and current activities qualify as being >> “techies” of one sort or another. Whether they would qualify as being >> members of the “Technical Community” (TC) under what I understand to be the >> criteria for inclusion within the TC as currently defined by the formal TC >> structures I’m not sure, as their orientation tends to be towards technical >> design and fabrication in support of social/digital inclusion and social >> justice.) >> >> Best to all, >> >> M >> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *George Sadowsky >> *Sent:* Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:04 AM >> *To:* Ian Peter >> *Cc:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and >> need for IGC and civil society Liaisons >> >> Hi, Ian, >> >> Sala and I talked while we were both in Buenos Aires. Perhaps I can >> clarify my sense of what she may have been proposing. >> >> There is at the moment somewhat of a gulf between the technical community >> and the list(s) used by the proclaimed representatives of civil society. >> Sometimes such differences of opinion, as well as fact, can be resoled >> rather quickly if they are discussed directly by people on both sides of >> the issue, rather than being left to fester and feed growing suspicion >> and/or discontent. I think that Sala thought that having some announced or >> implied line of communication, clearly non-exclusive, might be helpful at >> times. I thought so, too. >> >> Having seen little response from anyone on this list, perhaps the idea >> isn't welcome in the more formalized sense in which it has been presented, >> and I can understand that. I think that perhaps I could be more active >> from time to time in the discussions that occur, and that might help to >> bridge some differences between the communities. Although I consider >> myself more technical in the context of Internet governance discussions, I >> do have roots in development activities that are quite consistent with >> some of the expressions of opinion posted to this and similar lists. >> >> George >> >> >> >> <> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Nov 26 07:41:15 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 07:41:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Mawaki, On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by >> Michael Gurstein >> Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST >> Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society >> I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread >> Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder >> environment >> begun by George Sadowsky. >> >> Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues? >> In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point was >> made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at a recent >> workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his children also query >> the speed of the Internet at home when they have to do their homework. The >> only people excluded from civil society are incarcerated prisoners, and >> that also is a statement that can be questioned. If I understand him >> correctly George Sadowsky is making the same point. Civil society is us - >> all of us. >> > > Sure! We may declare everybody is CS and expect any institutional policy > process to open mike to whoever walks in and requests to speak as CS. From > my part, I was working on the basis of assumptions I thought were widely > recognized as part of the current landscape --and even an inevitable part. > If we want to talk about _multistakeholder_ processes, then we cannot but > recognize multiple stakeholders, thus boundaries. > The above only applies if you are talking about the Geneva-centric IG landscape. What I call "meta-IG". Here is an example where it does not apply at all. All "stakeholders" come together as co-equals, with zero boundaries. [Version Francaise ci-dessous] Dear Colleagues, Please note that AFRINIC-19, currently being held in Abidjan, Cote D'Ivoire can be followed remotely. Watch our live webcast here: http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-19/en/meeting/live Listen to the live audio stream here: http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-19/en/meeting/live#audio-stream Participate, send a comment and discuss via Jabber: http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-19/en/agenda/participate-online Follow us on Twitter: @AFRINIC, @AFRINIC19 Like our Facebook page: facebook.com/afrinic ---------------------------- Chers Collegues, Veuillez noter que vous pouvez participer en ligne a la reunion AFRINIC-19, qui se tient actuellement a Abidjan, Cote D'Ivoire. Suivez les videos live ici: http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-19/fr/meeting/live Ecoutez au live audio stream ici: http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-19/fr/meeting/live#transmission-audio-en-continu Participez, envoyez un commentaire et discutez via Jabber: http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-19/fr/programme/participation-en-ligne Suivez nous sur Twitter: @AFRINIC, @AFRINIC19 Aimer notre page Facebook: facebook.com/afrinic > If we have set up IGC as a membership structure, then we have necessarily > identified criteria for membership, thus boundaries. > Correct, because we are so focused on Geneva and the "political power" that SGs have in those processes. -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Nov 26 08:05:04 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:05:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT In-Reply-To: <1385452712.44293.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1384066968.48757.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385452712.44293.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Imran, There is no written rule saying that you cannot apply both via the IGC NomCom or through Diplo or directly to the IGF Secretariat but it allows for the systems to be gamed and gives you an unusual advantage. It would mean that you do not trust any one mechanism and would like to increase the probability of being selected. This is precisely why I have been asking other civil society organisations to consider having one joint process to select representatives to things like the MAG etc. Given that the NomCom Chair would have received your notice, he would have to consider this and perhaps give you the option of selecting one forum for selection. This could possibly mean that if you select the IGC that you would withdraw your nomination from Diplo or the reverse. This will allow for people not to question the process and NomCom selection. Hope you are well though and in excellent health. On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear All Fellows at IGC CS. > > With reference to my self nomination at Diplo Internet Governance Blog, I > would require your support for the endorsement to my slef-nomination for > IGC CS as well as on Diplo Internet Governance Blog. > > I also have updated my profile on Diplo Internet Governance Online Blog. > url > http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/nomination-for-igf-mag-2014 > . > > Please read the Diplo post about the 2014 MAG endorsement process > . > As per Diplo community recommendations (endorsements) will be calculated > using the following criteria: > > 40% - results of poll Click here to take the survey. > 20% - experience in IG global policy processes, including efforts such as > APC, IGC, Diplo discussions, regional work and other work. Please describe > these activities in your post > 10% - representation from least developed countries > 10% - representation from small island states > 10% - representation from countries never before represented on the MAG > 10% - gender (to support gender balance and more women on the MAG) > > Initially candidate nominees for IGF MAG would require community support > reflection through a Survey/Poll Click here to take the survey. > So, would you like to spare few minutes to submit your preference about > candidates through this Survey Click here to take the survey. > > Thanking you and Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > Member Internet Governance Caucus and Best Bits > Founding President IGF Pakistan > NCUC Member (since 2009) > ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Imran Ahmed Shah > *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Jeremy Hunsinger ; Sonigitu Ekpe > *Sent:* Sunday, 10 November 2013, 12:02 > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for > names) URGENT > > Dear All, > > With reference to the following Call for the Nominations (for IGF MAG), > and subsequent messages from Mr Izumi Aizu & Ms Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, I > would nominate myself for the IGF MAG. > > I recently has organized a workshop at AP regional IGF 2013 at Seoul with > the title of Governance for the Internet of Kids, Teenagers and Youngsters. > Workshop detail & my profile may be find at APrIGF Website ( > http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-32/ , http://2013.rigf.asia/day3/ and > http://2013.rigf.asia/speakers-profiles/#Imran). > > Further information as mentioned for EOI, I will arrange to submit to the > Coordinators and MAG Nomcom. > > Thanking you and Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > Member Internet Governance Caucus > Founding President IGF Pakistan > NCUC Member (since 2009) > ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Sonigitu Ekpe > *To:* Jeremy Hunsinger ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Sent:* Sunday, 10 November 2013, 11:59 > *Subject:* Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for > names) URGENT > > I volunteer to serve on the MAG. > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > +234 8027510179 > On Nov 10, 2013 5:37 AM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" wrote: > > I can do nomcom > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is > an update: > > *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. Adame Peake > 2. Ian Peter > 3. Kossi Amessinou > > *[We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom]* > > *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* > > 1. Asif Kabani > 2. Rudi Vansnick > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear All, > > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is > an update: > > *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. Adame Peake > 2. Ian Peter > 3. Kossi Amessinou > > > *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people.* > > 1. Asif Kabani > 2. Rudi Vansnick > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Nov 26 08:55:49 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:55:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <1384066968.48757.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385452712.44293.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1385474149.36657.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Salanieta, the IGC CS Coordinator. Thanks for your intimation about the conflict appeared at IGC CS, and observed by the NomCom Chair. I would also like add (to the observation) that I also have submit my name to Best Bits as well. Please let me understand first about the complications and objections on my Open & Transparent candidacy. I will give you my response promptly and very shortly. Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Imran Ahmed Shah >Cc: Ian Peter >Sent: Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 18:05 >Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT > > > >Dear Imran, > >There is no written rule saying that you cannot apply both via the IGC NomCom or through Diplo or directly to the IGF Secretariat but it allows for the systems to be gamed and gives you an unusual advantage. It would mean that you do not trust any one mechanism and would like to increase the probability of being selected. This is precisely why I have been asking other civil society organisations to consider having one joint process to select representatives to things like the MAG etc. > > >Given that the NomCom Chair would have received your notice, he would have to consider this and perhaps give you the option of selecting one forum for selection. This could possibly mean that if you select the IGC that you would withdraw your nomination from Diplo or the reverse. This will allow for people not to question the process and NomCom selection. > > >Hope you are well though and in excellent health. > > > > >On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >Dear All Fellows at IGC CS. >> >> >>With reference to my self nomination at Diplo Internet Governance Blog, I would require your support for the endorsement to my slef-nomination for IGC CS as well as on Diplo Internet Governance Blog. >> >> >>I also have updated my profile on Diplo Internet Governance Online Blog.  >>url http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/nomination-for-igf-mag-2014. >> >> >> >>Please read the Diplo post about the 2014 MAG endorsement process. >> >>As per Diplo community recommendations (endorsements) will be calculated using the following criteria: >> >>40% - results of poll   Click here to take the survey. >>20% - experience in IG global policy processes, including efforts such as APC, IGC, Diplo discussions, regional work and other work. Please describe these activities in your post  >>10% - representation from least developed countries  >>10% - representation from small island states  >>10% - representation from countries never before represented on the MAG >>10% - gender (to support gender balance and more women on the MAG) >> >> >>Initially candidate nominees for IGF MAG would require community support reflection through a Survey/Poll Click here to take the survey. >>So, would you like to spare few minutes to submit your preference about candidates through this Survey Click here to take the survey. >> >> >>Thanking you and Best Regards >> >> >>Imran Ahmed Shah >>Member Internet Governance Caucus and Best Bits >>Founding President IGF Pakistan >>NCUC Member (since 2009) >>ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) >> >> >> >>>________________________________ >>> From: Imran Ahmed Shah >>>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Jeremy Hunsinger ; Sonigitu Ekpe >>>Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 12:02 >>> >>>Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT >>> >>> >>> >>>Dear All, >>> >>> >>>With reference to the following Call for the Nominations (for IGF MAG), and subsequent messages from Mr Izumi Aizu & Ms Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, I would nominate myself for the IGF MAG. >>> >>> >>>I recently has organized a workshop at AP regional IGF 2013 at Seoul with the title of Governance for the Internet of Kids, Teenagers and Youngsters. Workshop detail & my profile may be find at APrIGF Website (http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-32/ , http://2013.rigf.asia/day3/ and http://2013.rigf.asia/speakers-profiles/#Imran). >>> >>> >>>Further information as mentioned for EOI, I will arrange to submit to the Coordinators and MAG Nomcom. >>> >>> >>>Thanking you and Best Regards >>> >>> >>>Imran Ahmed Shah >>>Member Internet Governance Caucus >>>Founding President IGF Pakistan >>>NCUC Member (since 2009) >>>ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) >>> >>> >>> >>>>________________________________ >>>> From: Sonigitu Ekpe >>>>To: Jeremy Hunsinger ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 11:59 >>>>Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I volunteer to serve on the MAG. >>>>Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >>>>"Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >>>>+234 8027510179 >>>>On Nov 10, 2013 5:37 AM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" wrote: >>>> >>>>I can do nomcom >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: >>>>>> >>>>>>Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Adame Peake >>>>>> 2. Ian Peter >>>>>> 3. Kossi Amessinou >>>>>>[We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom] >>>>>> >>>>>>Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection  can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Asif Kabani >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Rudi Vansnick >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>Dear All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Adame Peake >>>>>>> 2. Ian Peter >>>>>>> 3. Kossi Amessinou >>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection  can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Asif Kabani >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Rudi Vansnick >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 09:06:31 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:06:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT In-Reply-To: <1385474149.36657.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1384066968.48757.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385452712.44293.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385474149.36657.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <18FAA9B3-7198-4683-9FC1-8F85B433C965@gmail.com> Dear Imran, Many thanks for your quick response. Hope you are well. Best Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Nov 26, 2013, at 8:55 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Dear Salanieta, the IGC CS Coordinator. > Thanks for your intimation about the conflict appeared at IGC CS, and observed by the NomCom Chair. > I would also like add (to the observation) that I also have submit my name to Best Bits as well. > > Please let me understand first about the complications and objections on my Open & Transparent candidacy. > > I will give you my response promptly and very shortly. > > Thanking you and Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Imran Ahmed Shah > Cc: Ian Peter > Sent: Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 18:05 > Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT > > Dear Imran, > > There is no written rule saying that you cannot apply both via the IGC NomCom or through Diplo or directly to the IGF Secretariat but it allows for the systems to be gamed and gives you an unusual advantage. It would mean that you do not trust any one mechanism and would like to increase the probability of being selected. This is precisely why I have been asking other civil society organisations to consider having one joint process to select representatives to things like the MAG etc. > > Given that the NomCom Chair would have received your notice, he would have to consider this and perhaps give you the option of selecting one forum for selection. This could possibly mean that if you select the IGC that you would withdraw your nomination from Diplo or the reverse. This will allow for people not to question the process and NomCom selection. > > Hope you are well though and in excellent health. > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear All Fellows at IGC CS. > > With reference to my self nomination at Diplo Internet Governance Blog, I would require your support for the endorsement to my slef-nomination for IGC CS as well as on Diplo Internet Governance Blog. > > I also have updated my profile on Diplo Internet Governance Online Blog. > url http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/nomination-for-igf-mag-2014. > > Please read the Diplo post about the 2014 MAG endorsement process. > As per Diplo community recommendations (endorsements) will be calculated using the following criteria: > > 40% - results of poll Click here to take the survey. > 20% - experience in IG global policy processes, including efforts such as APC, IGC, Diplo discussions, regional work and other work. Please describe these activities in your post > 10% - representation from least developed countries > 10% - representation from small island states > 10% - representation from countries never before represented on the MAG > 10% - gender (to support gender balance and more women on the MAG) > > Initially candidate nominees for IGF MAG would require community support reflection through a Survey/Poll Click here to take the survey. > So, would you like to spare few minutes to submit your preference about candidates through this Survey Click here to take the survey. > > Thanking you and Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > Member Internet Governance Caucus and Best Bits > Founding President IGF Pakistan > NCUC Member (since 2009) > ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) > > From: Imran Ahmed Shah > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Jeremy Hunsinger ; Sonigitu Ekpe > Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 12:02 > > Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT > > Dear All, > > With reference to the following Call for the Nominations (for IGF MAG), and subsequent messages from Mr Izumi Aizu & Ms Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, I would nominate myself for the IGF MAG. > > I recently has organized a workshop at AP regional IGF 2013 at Seoul with the title of Governance for the Internet of Kids, Teenagers and Youngsters. Workshop detail & my profile may be find at APrIGF Website (http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-32/ , http://2013.rigf.asia/day3/ and http://2013.rigf.asia/speakers-profiles/#Imran). > > Further information as mentioned for EOI, I will arrange to submit to the Coordinators and MAG Nomcom. > > Thanking you and Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > Member Internet Governance Caucus > Founding President IGF Pakistan > NCUC Member (since 2009) > ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) > > From: Sonigitu Ekpe > To: Jeremy Hunsinger ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 11:59 > Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT > > I volunteer to serve on the MAG. > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > +234 8027510179 > On Nov 10, 2013 5:37 AM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" wrote: > I can do nomcom > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > Adame Peake > Ian Peter > Kossi Amessinou > [We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom] > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: > > Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > Adame Peake > Ian Peter > Kossi Amessinou > Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 09:07:54 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 12:07:54 -0200 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT In-Reply-To: <1385474149.36657.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1384066968.48757.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385452712.44293.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385474149.36657.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I volunteer for the NomCom. Marília On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear Salanieta, the IGC CS Coordinator. > Thanks for your intimation about the conflict appeared at IGC CS, and > observed by the NomCom Chair. > I would also like add (to the observation) that I also have submit my name > to Best Bits as well. > > Please let me understand first about the complications and objections on > my Open & Transparent candidacy. > > I will give you my response promptly and very shortly. > > Thanking you and Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Imran Ahmed Shah > *Cc:* Ian Peter > *Sent:* Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 18:05 > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for > names) URGENT > > Dear Imran, > > There is no written rule saying that you cannot apply both via the IGC > NomCom or through Diplo or directly to the IGF Secretariat but it allows > for the systems to be gamed and gives you an unusual advantage. It would > mean that you do not trust any one mechanism and would like to increase the > probability of being selected. This is precisely why I have been asking > other civil society organisations to consider having one joint process to > select representatives to things like the MAG etc. > > Given that the NomCom Chair would have received your notice, he would have > to consider this and perhaps give you the option of selecting one forum for > selection. This could possibly mean that if you select the IGC that you > would withdraw your nomination from Diplo or the reverse. This will allow > for people not to question the process and NomCom selection. > > Hope you are well though and in excellent health. > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Dear All Fellows at IGC CS. > > With reference to my self nomination at Diplo Internet Governance Blog, I > would require your support for the endorsement to my slef-nomination for > IGC CS as well as on Diplo Internet Governance Blog. > > I also have updated my profile on Diplo Internet Governance Online Blog. > url > http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/nomination-for-igf-mag-2014 > . > > Please read the Diplo post about the 2014 MAG endorsement process > . > As per Diplo community recommendations (endorsements) will be calculated > using the following criteria: > > 40% - results of poll Click here to take the survey. > 20% - experience in IG global policy processes, including efforts such as > APC, IGC, Diplo discussions, regional work and other work. Please describe > these activities in your post > 10% - representation from least developed countries > 10% - representation from small island states > 10% - representation from countries never before represented on the MAG > 10% - gender (to support gender balance and more women on the MAG) > > Initially candidate nominees for IGF MAG would require community support > reflection through a Survey/Poll Click here to take the survey. > So, would you like to spare few minutes to submit your preference about > candidates through this Survey Click here to take the survey. > > Thanking you and Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > Member Internet Governance Caucus and Best Bits > Founding President IGF Pakistan > NCUC Member (since 2009) > ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Imran Ahmed Shah > *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Jeremy Hunsinger ; Sonigitu Ekpe > *Sent:* Sunday, 10 November 2013, 12:02 > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for > names) URGENT > > Dear All, > > With reference to the following Call for the Nominations (for IGF MAG), > and subsequent messages from Mr Izumi Aizu & Ms Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, I > would nominate myself for the IGF MAG. > > I recently has organized a workshop at AP regional IGF 2013 at Seoul with > the title of Governance for the Internet of Kids, Teenagers and Youngsters. > Workshop detail & my profile may be find at APrIGF Website ( > http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-32/ , http://2013.rigf.asia/day3/ and > http://2013.rigf.asia/speakers-profiles/#Imran). > > Further information as mentioned for EOI, I will arrange to submit to the > Coordinators and MAG Nomcom. > > Thanking you and Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > Member Internet Governance Caucus > Founding President IGF Pakistan > NCUC Member (since 2009) > ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Sonigitu Ekpe > *To:* Jeremy Hunsinger ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Sent:* Sunday, 10 November 2013, 11:59 > *Subject:* Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for > names) URGENT > > I volunteer to serve on the MAG. > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > +234 8027510179 > On Nov 10, 2013 5:37 AM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" wrote: > > I can do nomcom > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is > an update: > > *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. Adame Peake > 2. Ian Peter > 3. Kossi Amessinou > > *[We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom]* > > *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people. * > > 1. Asif Kabani > 2. Rudi Vansnick > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear All, > > Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is > an update: > > *Volunteers for MAG NomCom* [25 Volunteers needed] > > 1. Adame Peake > 2. Ian Peter > 3. Kossi Amessinou > > > *Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse > and wide] Feel free to nominate people. * > > 1. Asif Kabani > 2. Rudi Vansnick > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jaryn56 at gmail.com Tue Nov 26 10:08:26 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:08:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <1384066968.48757.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385452712.44293.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385474149.36657.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Me ofrezco como voluntario, para el comité de nominaciones Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo 2013/11/26 Marilia Maciel : > I volunteer for the NomCom. > Marília > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >> Dear Salanieta, the IGC CS Coordinator. >> Thanks for your intimation about the conflict appeared at IGC CS, and >> observed by the NomCom Chair. >> I would also like add (to the observation) that I also have submit my name >> to Best Bits as well. >> >> Please let me understand first about the complications and objections on >> my Open & Transparent candidacy. >> >> I will give you my response promptly and very shortly. >> >> Thanking you and Best Regards >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Imran >> Ahmed Shah >> Cc: Ian Peter >> Sent: Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 18:05 >> >> Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for >> names) URGENT >> >> Dear Imran, >> >> There is no written rule saying that you cannot apply both via the IGC >> NomCom or through Diplo or directly to the IGF Secretariat but it allows for >> the systems to be gamed and gives you an unusual advantage. It would mean >> that you do not trust any one mechanism and would like to increase the >> probability of being selected. This is precisely why I have been asking >> other civil society organisations to consider having one joint process to >> select representatives to things like the MAG etc. >> >> Given that the NomCom Chair would have received your notice, he would have >> to consider this and perhaps give you the option of selecting one forum for >> selection. This could possibly mean that if you select the IGC that you >> would withdraw your nomination from Diplo or the reverse. This will allow >> for people not to question the process and NomCom selection. >> >> Hope you are well though and in excellent health. >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah >> wrote: >> >> Dear All Fellows at IGC CS. >> >> With reference to my self nomination at Diplo Internet Governance Blog, I >> would require your support for the endorsement to my slef-nomination for IGC >> CS as well as on Diplo Internet Governance Blog. >> >> I also have updated my profile on Diplo Internet Governance Online Blog. >> url >> http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/nomination-for-igf-mag-2014. >> >> Please read the Diplo post about the 2014 MAG endorsement process. >> As per Diplo community recommendations (endorsements) will be calculated >> using the following criteria: >> >> 40% - results of poll Click here to take the survey. >> 20% - experience in IG global policy processes, including efforts such as >> APC, IGC, Diplo discussions, regional work and other work. Please describe >> these activities in your post >> 10% - representation from least developed countries >> 10% - representation from small island states >> 10% - representation from countries never before represented on the MAG >> 10% - gender (to support gender balance and more women on the MAG) >> >> Initially candidate nominees for IGF MAG would require community support >> reflection through a Survey/Poll Click here to take the survey. >> So, would you like to spare few minutes to submit your preference about >> candidates through this Survey Click here to take the survey. >> >> Thanking you and Best Regards >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> Member Internet Governance Caucus and Best Bits >> Founding President IGF Pakistan >> NCUC Member (since 2009) >> ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Imran Ahmed Shah >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; >> Jeremy Hunsinger ; Sonigitu Ekpe >> Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 12:02 >> >> Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for >> names) URGENT >> >> Dear All, >> >> With reference to the following Call for the Nominations (for IGF MAG), >> and subsequent messages from Mr Izumi Aizu & Ms Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, >> I would nominate myself for the IGF MAG. >> >> I recently has organized a workshop at AP regional IGF 2013 at Seoul with >> the title of Governance for the Internet of Kids, Teenagers and Youngsters. >> Workshop detail & my profile may be find at APrIGF Website >> (http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-32/ , http://2013.rigf.asia/day3/ and >> http://2013.rigf.asia/speakers-profiles/#Imran). >> >> Further information as mentioned for EOI, I will arrange to submit to the >> Coordinators and MAG Nomcom. >> >> Thanking you and Best Regards >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> Member Internet Governance Caucus >> Founding President IGF Pakistan >> NCUC Member (since 2009) >> ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Sonigitu Ekpe >> To: Jeremy Hunsinger ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 11:59 >> Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for >> names) URGENT >> >> I volunteer to serve on the MAG. >> Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >> "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >> +234 8027510179 >> On Nov 10, 2013 5:37 AM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" wrote: >> >> I can do nomcom >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> >> Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is >> an update: >> >> Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >> >> Adame Peake >> Ian Peter >> Kossi Amessinou >> >> [We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom] >> Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse >> and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >> >> Asif Kabani >> Rudi Vansnick >> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is >> an update: >> >> Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >> >> Adame Peake >> Ian Peter >> Kossi Amessinou >> >> Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can be diverse >> and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >> >> Asif Kabani >> Rudi Vansnick >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 zeeshan_shoki at yahoo.com Tue Nov 26 10:12:39 2013 From: zeeshan_shoki at yahoo.com (Zeeshan shoki) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 07:12:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <1384066968.48757.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385452712.44293.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385474149.36657.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1385478759.76641.YahooMailNeo@web164002.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>  I would like to Volunteer for MAG NomCom. Thanks Zeeshan Shoki Chief Executive PAK Education Society/ Pakistan Development Network On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 7:08 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: I volunteer for the NomCom. Marília On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: Dear Salanieta, the IGC CS Coordinator. >Thanks for your intimation about the conflict appeared at IGC CS, and observed by the NomCom Chair. >I would also like add (to the observation) that I also have submit my name to Best Bits as well. > > >Please let me understand first about the complications and objections on my Open & Transparent candidacy. > > >I will give you my response promptly and very shortly. > > >Thanking you and Best Regards > > >Imran Ahmed Shah > >>________________________________ >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Imran Ahmed Shah >>Cc: Ian Peter >>Sent: Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 18:05 >> >>Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT >> >> >> >>Dear Imran, >> >>There is no written rule saying that you cannot apply both via the IGC NomCom or through Diplo or directly to the IGF Secretariat but it allows for the systems to be gamed and gives you an unusual advantage. It would mean that you do not trust any one mechanism and would like to increase the probability of being selected. This is precisely why I have been asking other civil society organisations to consider having one joint process to select representatives to things like the MAG etc. >> >> >>Given that the NomCom Chair would have received your notice, he would have to consider this and perhaps give you the option of selecting one forum for selection. This could possibly mean that if you select the IGC that you would withdraw your nomination from Diplo or the reverse. This will allow for people not to question the process and NomCom selection. >> >> >>Hope you are well though and in excellent health. >> >> >> >> >>On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >>Dear All Fellows at IGC CS. >>> >>> >>>With reference to my self nomination at Diplo Internet Governance Blog, I would require your support for the endorsement to my slef-nomination for IGC CS as well as on Diplo Internet Governance Blog. >>> >>> >>>I also have updated my profile on Diplo Internet Governance Online Blog.  >>>url http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/nomination-for-igf-mag-2014. >>> >>> >>> >>>Please read the Diplo post about the 2014 MAG endorsement process. >>> >>>As per Diplo community recommendations (endorsements) will be calculated using the following criteria: >>> >>>40% - results of poll   Click here to take the survey. >>>20% - experience in IG global policy processes, including efforts such as APC, IGC, Diplo discussions, regional work and other work. Please describe these activities in your post  >>>10% - representation from least developed countries  >>>10% - representation from small island states  >>>10% - representation from countries never before represented on the MAG >>>10% - gender (to support gender balance and more women on the MAG) >>> >>> >>>Initially candidate nominees for IGF MAG would require community support reflection through a Survey/Poll Click here to take the survey. >>>So, would you like to spare few minutes to submit your preference about candidates through this Survey Click here to take the survey. >>> >>> >>>Thanking you and Best Regards >>> >>> >>>Imran Ahmed Shah >>>Member Internet Governance Caucus and Best Bits >>>Founding President IGF Pakistan >>>NCUC Member (since 2009) >>>ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) >>> >>> >>> >>>>________________________________ >>>> From: Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Jeremy Hunsinger ; Sonigitu Ekpe >>>>Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 12:02 >>>> >>>>Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Dear All, >>>> >>>> >>>>With reference to the following Call for the Nominations (for IGF MAG), and subsequent messages from Mr Izumi Aizu & Ms Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, I would nominate myself for the IGF MAG. >>>> >>>> >>>>I recently has organized a workshop at AP regional IGF 2013 at Seoul with the title of Governance for the Internet of Kids, Teenagers and Youngsters. Workshop detail & my profile may be find at APrIGF Website (http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-32/ , http://2013.rigf.asia/day3/ and http://2013.rigf.asia/speakers-profiles/#Imran). >>>> >>>> >>>>Further information as mentioned for EOI, I will arrange to submit to the Coordinators and MAG Nomcom. >>>> >>>> >>>>Thanking you and Best Regards >>>> >>>> >>>>Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>Member Internet Governance Caucus >>>>Founding President IGF Pakistan >>>>NCUC Member (since 2009) >>>>ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>________________________________ >>>>> From: Sonigitu Ekpe >>>>>To: Jeremy Hunsinger ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 11:59 >>>>>Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I volunteer to serve on the MAG. >>>>>Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >>>>>"Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >>>>>+234 8027510179 >>>>>On Nov 10, 2013 5:37 AM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>I can do nomcom >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Adame Peake >>>>>>> 2. Ian Peter >>>>>>> 3. Kossi Amessinou >>>>>>>[We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection  can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Asif Kabani >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Rudi Vansnick >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Dear All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Adame Peake >>>>>>>> 2. Ian Peter >>>>>>>> 3. Kossi Amessinou >>>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection  can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Asif Kabani >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Rudi Vansnick >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Marília Maciel Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 10:24:11 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:24:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> Message-ID: <20131126162411.4422a2ea@quill> On the pad, someone is suggesting to change "1) Internationalisation of ICANN and IANA: The Global Meeting should aim at develping a concrete solution how the desired internationalization can be achieved." to "1) Internationalisation of ICANN and IANA: The Global Meeting should aim at developing a number of possible solutions on how this desired internationalization can be achieved." I'd like to request the author of this change to explain the reasoning behind it. My current perspective is that the main benefit of a high-level meeting as seems to be planned for Brazil should be that it could provide an opportunity to reach a decision on choosing a specific solution from among the various possibilities. If the choice is not made then and there, when and where will it be made? Greetings, Norbert Am Mon, 25 Nov 2013 22:02:48 +0100 schrieb Norbert Bollow : > Dear all > > From Carlos Afonso I have learned that it would be valuable at the > present stage for civil society networks like the IGC to make > statements in regard to the planned Global Multistakeholder Meeting > aiming at ensuring that the process will be a genuinely open (in > particular to all kinds of civil society perspectives) > multistakeholder process -- similar to what APC has already > emphasized in a recent statement. > > I've set up a pad with an initial draft: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil2014-process-objectives > > This initial text has been very significantly inspired by (and in some > parts in fact copied verbatim from) the relevant parts of APC's > statement (if these parts of the statement end up going through the > IGC consensus process unchanged, we should probably give explicit > credit in some way.) > > Here's a copy of this initial draft text: > > --snip----------------------------------------------------------------- > Statement of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus on Process > and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future > of Internet Governance > > As an international civil society network that has emerged from the > WSIS process, the Internet Governance Caucus sees the planned Global > Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance as a > huge opportunity. > > In order for this opportunity to be fully utilized and not wasted, we > urge the organizers to base the Global Meeting on a democratic > deliberative process. In particular, > > * Transparent, open, inclusive and participatory mechanisms must be > established for the involvement of the widest possible variety of > stakeholders, in the planning and organisation of the summit, from > its inception, both in regard to issues of processes and > substance. > > * Participation in the meeting should be linked to an online > consultation process similar to the one successfully employed by > Brazilian government and society to draft the “Marco Civil”, and > in the selection of participants preference should be given to people > and institutions who have participated actively in this online > process through making written submissions. This should be the > case for all the stakeholders, including governments. > > * Drafting groups responsible for capturing outputs should be > appointed prior to the event, and include representatives from a > wide variety of stakeholder groups. > > The Global Meeting should be focused on creating, through accountable > and transparent processes, concrete outcome documents in these two > main areas: > > 1) Internationalisation of ICANN and IANA: The Global Meeting > should aim at develping a concrete solution how the desired > internationalization can be achieved. > > 2) An international set of principles (or a civil framework) for > internet policy making that are fully harmonised with existing human > rights agreements, especially in regard to ensuring in the context of > Internet communications and cloud computing that any exceptions to the > "right to privacy" and "right to anonymity" principles are necessary > and proportionate. > --snap----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Are you in support of IGC making such a statement? > > Do you see needs for changes? > > 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 Tue Nov 26 10:34:52 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:34:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] some perspective on surveillance issues Message-ID: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20111125_telecoms_as_a_spying_tool/ -- 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 soekpe at gmail.com Tue Nov 26 11:28:36 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:28:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: +McTim. Thanks for that "all stakeholders come together as co-equals". Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Nov 26, 2013 1:42 PM, "McTim" wrote: > Mawaki, > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Deirdre Williams < >> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by >>> Michael Gurstein >>> Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE >>> REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society >>> I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread >>> Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder >>> environment >>> begun by George Sadowsky. >>> >>> Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues? >>> In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point was >>> made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at a recent >>> workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his children also query >>> the speed of the Internet at home when they have to do their homework. The >>> only people excluded from civil society are incarcerated prisoners, and >>> that also is a statement that can be questioned. If I understand him >>> correctly George Sadowsky is making the same point. Civil society is us - >>> all of us. >>> >> >> Sure! We may declare everybody is CS and expect any institutional policy >> process to open mike to whoever walks in and requests to speak as CS. From >> my part, I was working on the basis of assumptions I thought were widely >> recognized as part of the current landscape --and even an inevitable part. >> If we want to talk about _multistakeholder_ processes, then we cannot but >> recognize multiple stakeholders, thus boundaries. >> > > > The above only applies if you are talking about the Geneva-centric IG > landscape. What I call "meta-IG". > > Here is an example where it does not apply at all. All "stakeholders" > come together as co-equals, with zero boundaries. > > [Version Francaise ci-dessous] > Dear Colleagues, > > Please note that AFRINIC-19, currently being held in Abidjan, Cote > D'Ivoire can be followed remotely. > > Watch our live webcast here: > http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-19/en/meeting/live > > Listen to the live audio stream here: > http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-19/en/meeting/live#audio-stream > > Participate, send a comment and discuss via Jabber: > http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-19/en/agenda/participate-online > > Follow us on Twitter: @AFRINIC, @AFRINIC19 > Like our Facebook page: facebook.com/afrinic > ---------------------------- > > Chers Collegues, > > Veuillez noter que vous pouvez participer en ligne a la reunion > AFRINIC-19, qui se tient actuellement a Abidjan, Cote D'Ivoire. > > Suivez les videos live ici: > http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-19/fr/meeting/live > > Ecoutez au live audio stream ici: > > http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-19/fr/meeting/live#transmission-audio-en-continu > > Participez, envoyez un commentaire et discutez via Jabber: > http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-19/fr/programme/participation-en-ligne > > Suivez nous sur Twitter: @AFRINIC, @AFRINIC19 > Aimer notre page Facebook: facebook.com/afrinic > > > >> If we have set up IGC as a membership structure, then we have >> necessarily identified criteria for membership, thus boundaries. >> > > Correct, because we are so focused on Geneva and the "political power" > that SGs have in those processes. > > > -- > 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 aidanoblia at gmail.com Tue Nov 26 11:44:23 2013 From: aidanoblia at gmail.com (Aida Noblia) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:44:23 -0200 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Request for input on civil society representatives for the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" Message-ID: Dear all: of the named without prejudice to the other people mentioned, the person I know and I should trust her activity is Valeria Betancor Regards -- 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 Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Tue Nov 26 12:47:53 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:47:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT In-Reply-To: <1385478759.76641.YahooMailNeo@web164002.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1384066968.48757.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385452712.44293.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385474149.36657.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385478759.76641.YahooMailNeo@web164002.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear José, Shoki and Marilia, you are loosing me. I thought NomCom was constituted sometimes back? On 26/11/2013, Zeeshan shoki wrote: >  I would like to Volunteer for MAG NomCom. > > Thanks > > Zeeshan Shoki > Chief Executive > PAK Education Society/ > Pakistan Development Network > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 7:08 PM, Marilia Maciel > wrote: > > I volunteer for the NomCom. > Marília > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah > wrote: > > Dear Salanieta, the IGC CS Coordinator. >>Thanks for your intimation about the conflict appeared at IGC CS, and >> observed by the NomCom Chair. >>I would also like add (to the observation) that I also have submit my name >> to Best Bits as well. >> >> >>Please let me understand first about the complications and objections on my >> Open & Transparent candidacy. >> >> >>I will give you my response promptly and very shortly. >> >> >>Thanking you and Best Regards >> >> >>Imran Ahmed Shah >> >>>________________________________ >>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >>>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Imran >>> Ahmed Shah >>>Cc: Ian Peter >>>Sent: Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 18:05 >>> >>>Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for >>> names) URGENT >>> >>> >>> >>>Dear Imran, >>> >>>There is no written rule saying that you cannot apply both via the IGC >>> NomCom or through Diplo or directly to the IGF Secretariat but it allows >>> for the systems to be gamed and gives you an unusual advantage. It would >>> mean that you do not trust any one mechanism and would like to increase >>> the probability of being selected. This is precisely why I have been >>> asking other civil society organisations to consider having one joint >>> process to select representatives to things like the MAG etc. >>> >>> >>>Given that the NomCom Chair would have received your notice, he would have >>> to consider this and perhaps give you the option of selecting one forum >>> for selection. This could possibly mean that if you select the IGC that >>> you would withdraw your nomination from Diplo or the reverse. This will >>> allow for people not to question the process and NomCom selection. >>> >>> >>>Hope you are well though and in excellent health. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah >>> wrote: >>> >>>Dear All Fellows at IGC CS. >>>> >>>> >>>>With reference to my self nomination at Diplo Internet Governance Blog, I >>>> would require your support for the endorsement to my slef-nomination for >>>> IGC CS as well as on Diplo Internet Governance Blog. >>>> >>>> >>>>I also have updated my profile on Diplo Internet Governance Online >>>> Blog. >>>>url http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/nomination-for-igf-mag-2014. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Please read the Diplo post about the 2014 MAG endorsement process. >>>> >>>>As per Diplo community recommendations (endorsements) will be calculated >>>> using the following criteria: >>>> >>>>40% - results of poll   Click here to take the survey. >>>>20% - experience in IG global policy processes, including efforts such as >>>> APC, IGC, Diplo discussions, regional work and other work. Please >>>> describe these activities in your post >>>>10% - representation from least developed countries >>>>10% - representation from small island states >>>>10% - representation from countries never before represented on the MAG >>>>10% - gender (to support gender balance and more women on the MAG) >>>> >>>> >>>>Initially candidate nominees for IGF MAG would require community support >>>> reflection through a Survey/Poll Click here to take the survey. >>>>So, would you like to spare few minutes to submit your preference about >>>> candidates through this Survey Click here to take the survey. >>>> >>>> >>>>Thanking you and Best Regards >>>> >>>> >>>>Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>Member Internet Governance Caucus and Best Bits >>>>Founding President IGF Pakistan >>>>NCUC Member (since 2009) >>>>ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>________________________________ >>>>> From: Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; >>>>> Jeremy Hunsinger ; Sonigitu Ekpe >>>>>Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 12:02 >>>>> >>>>>Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for >>>>> names) URGENT >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>With reference to the following Call for the Nominations (for IGF MAG), >>>>> and subsequent messages from Mr Izumi Aizu & Ms Salanieta >>>>> Tamanikaiwaimaro, I would nominate myself for the IGF MAG. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I recently has organized a workshop at AP regional IGF 2013 at Seoul >>>>> with the title of Governance for the Internet of Kids, Teenagers and >>>>> Youngsters. Workshop detail & my profile may be find at APrIGF Website >>>>> (http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-32/ , http://2013.rigf.asia/day3/ and http://2013.rigf.asia/speakers-profiles/#Imran). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Further information as mentioned for EOI, I will arrange to submit to >>>>> the Coordinators and MAG Nomcom. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Thanking you and Best Regards >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>>Member Internet Governance Caucus >>>>>Founding President IGF Pakistan >>>>>NCUC Member (since 2009) >>>>>ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>________________________________ >>>>>> From: Sonigitu Ekpe >>>>>>To: Jeremy Hunsinger ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 11:59 >>>>>>Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for >>>>>> names) URGENT >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I volunteer to serve on the MAG. >>>>>>Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >>>>>>"Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >>>>>>+234 8027510179 >>>>>>On Nov 10, 2013 5:37 AM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>I can do nomcom >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here >>>>>>> is an update: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Adame Peake >>>>>>>> 2. Ian Peter >>>>>>>> 3. Kossi Amessinou >>>>>>>>[We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection  can be >>>>>>>> diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Asif Kabani >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Rudi Vansnick >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Dear All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, >>>>>>>>> here is an update: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Adame Peake >>>>>>>>> 2. Ian Peter >>>>>>>>> 3. Kossi Amessinou >>>>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection  can be >>>>>>>>> diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Asif Kabani >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Rudi Vansnick >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>To > edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Nov 26 12:59:35 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:59:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Request for input on civil society representatives for the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" In-Reply-To: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> Message-ID: <20131126185935.4b4b265e@quill> Dear all Here's a quick update... So far, in addition the following have been suggested, some in public postings, some privately: Anju Mangal, Grace Githaiga, Judy Okite, Nnenna Nwakanma, Michael Gurstein, Thomas Lowenhaupt. I have written to each of them to enquire about their willingness to serve on this "Panel". So far, Grace Githaiga, Michael Gurstein, and Thomas Lowenhaupt have replied positively. Please note that the deadline for any additional suggestions is rather soon. In regard to the question that has been raised about process: This is right now an ad hoc process aimed at making --in a way that is coordinated across civil society networks as well as we can in a very tight timeframe-- a demand for increased civil society representation on the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation"; this is not directly related to 1net nor to any of the various committees that will need to be formed in view of the Global Meeting in Brazil. I certainly hope that it will be possible to set up a proper NomCom process for those selection tasks, and that we'll find a way to do that in a way that is again coordinated across civil society networks. Greetings, Norbert Am Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:56:57 +0100 schrieb Norbert Bollow : > Dear all, > > there is now an informal coordination group of some kind (tentatively > called "steering committee", although I expect that that name will > probably be changed) consisting of Anriette Esterhuysen for APC, > Jeremy Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for NCSG, Virginia Paque for > DIPLO, myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as facilitator. > > The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society representation > on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" organized > by ICANN [1]. > > [1] > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html > > The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional > civil society people for this panel. > > The following names have been suggested so far: > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, > Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. > > In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you wish > to be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow Tuesday > which is about 24 hours from now.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Nov 26 13:06:15 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:06:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT In-Reply-To: References: <1384066968.48757.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385452712.44293.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385474149.36657.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385478759.76641.YahooMailNeo@web164002.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20131126190615.35937488@quill> Kivuva is right-- the MAG renewal NomCom is already constituted and I'm sure hard at work, as their deadline is coming soon. There's a lot of further selection tasks looming but no call for NomCom volunteers has been published yet for those selection tasks. I hope to find a way to coordinate NomCom creation with other major civil society networks. Greetings, Norbert Am Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:47:53 +0000 schrieb Kivuva : > Dear José, Shoki and Marilia, you are loosing me. I thought NomCom was > constituted sometimes back? > > On 26/11/2013, Zeeshan shoki wrote: > >  I would like to Volunteer for MAG NomCom. > > > > Thanks > > > > Zeeshan Shoki > > Chief Executive > > PAK Education Society/ > > Pakistan Development Network > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 7:08 PM, Marilia Maciel > > wrote: > > > > I volunteer for the NomCom. > > Marília > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah > > wrote: > > > > Dear Salanieta, the IGC CS Coordinator. > >>Thanks for your intimation about the conflict appeared at IGC CS, > >>and > >> observed by the NomCom Chair. > >>I would also like add (to the observation) that I also have submit > >>my name > >> to Best Bits as well. > >> > >> > >>Please let me understand first about the complications and > >>objections on my > >> Open & Transparent candidacy. > >> > >> > >>I will give you my response promptly and very shortly. > >> > >> > >>Thanking you and Best Regards > >> > >> > >>Imran Ahmed Shah > >> > >>>________________________________ > >>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> > >>>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > >>>; Imran > >>> Ahmed Shah > >>>Cc: Ian Peter > >>>Sent: Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 18:05 > >>> > >>>Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees > >>>(Call for > >>> names) URGENT > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>Dear Imran, > >>> > >>>There is no written rule saying that you cannot apply both via the > >>>IGC > >>> NomCom or through Diplo or directly to the IGF Secretariat but it > >>> allows for the systems to be gamed and gives you an unusual > >>> advantage. It would mean that you do not trust any one mechanism > >>> and would like to increase the probability of being selected. > >>> This is precisely why I have been asking other civil society > >>> organisations to consider having one joint process to select > >>> representatives to things like the MAG etc. > >>> > >>> > >>>Given that the NomCom Chair would have received your notice, he > >>>would have > >>> to consider this and perhaps give you the option of selecting one > >>> forum for selection. This could possibly mean that if you select > >>> the IGC that you would withdraw your nomination from Diplo or the > >>> reverse. This will allow for people not to question the process > >>> and NomCom selection. > >>> > >>> > >>>Hope you are well though and in excellent health. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>Dear All Fellows at IGC CS. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>With reference to my self nomination at Diplo Internet Governance > >>>>Blog, I > >>>> would require your support for the endorsement to my > >>>> slef-nomination for IGC CS as well as on Diplo Internet > >>>> Governance Blog. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>I also have updated my profile on Diplo Internet Governance Online > >>>> Blog. > >>>>url http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/nomination-for-igf-mag-2014. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Please read the Diplo post about the 2014 MAG endorsement process. > >>>> > >>>>As per Diplo community recommendations (endorsements) will be > >>>>calculated > >>>> using the following criteria: > >>>> > >>>>40% - results of poll   Click here to take the survey. > >>>>20% - experience in IG global policy processes, including efforts > >>>>such as > >>>> APC, IGC, Diplo discussions, regional work and other work. Please > >>>> describe these activities in your post > >>>>10% - representation from least developed countries > >>>>10% - representation from small island states > >>>>10% - representation from countries never before represented on > >>>>the MAG 10% - gender (to support gender balance and more women on > >>>>the MAG) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Initially candidate nominees for IGF MAG would require community > >>>>support > >>>> reflection through a Survey/Poll Click here to take the survey. > >>>>So, would you like to spare few minutes to submit your preference > >>>>about > >>>> candidates through this Survey Click here to take the survey. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Thanking you and Best Regards > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Imran Ahmed Shah > >>>>Member Internet Governance Caucus and Best Bits > >>>>Founding President IGF Pakistan > >>>>NCUC Member (since 2009) > >>>>ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>________________________________ > >>>>> From: Imran Ahmed Shah > >>>>>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > >>>>>; > >>>>> Jeremy Hunsinger ; Sonigitu Ekpe > >>>>> > >>>>>Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 12:02 > >>>>> > >>>>>Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees > >>>>>(Call for > >>>>> names) URGENT > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Dear All, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>With reference to the following Call for the Nominations (for > >>>>>IGF MAG), > >>>>> and subsequent messages from Mr Izumi Aizu & Ms Salanieta > >>>>> Tamanikaiwaimaro, I would nominate myself for the IGF MAG. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I recently has organized a workshop at AP regional IGF 2013 at > >>>>>Seoul > >>>>> with the title of Governance for the Internet of Kids, > >>>>> Teenagers and Youngsters. Workshop detail & my profile may be > >>>>> find at APrIGF Website > >>>>> (http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-32/ , http://2013.rigf.asia/day3/ and http://2013.rigf.asia/speakers-profiles/#Imran). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Further information as mentioned for EOI, I will arrange to > >>>>>submit to > >>>>> the Coordinators and MAG Nomcom. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Thanking you and Best Regards > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Imran Ahmed Shah > >>>>>Member Internet Governance Caucus > >>>>>Founding President IGF Pakistan > >>>>>NCUC Member (since 2009) > >>>>>ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>________________________________ > >>>>>> From: Sonigitu Ekpe > >>>>>>To: Jeremy Hunsinger ; > >>>>>>governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, > >>>>>>11:59 Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG > >>>>>>nominees (Call for > >>>>>> names) URGENT > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I volunteer to serve on the MAG. > >>>>>>Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > >>>>>>"Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, > >>>>>>positively." +234 8027510179 > >>>>>>On Nov 10, 2013 5:37 AM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" > >>>>>>wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I can do nomcom > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the > >>>>>>>MAG, here > >>>>>>> is an update: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1. Adame Peake > >>>>>>>> 2. Ian Peter > >>>>>>>> 3. Kossi Amessinou > >>>>>>>>[We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection  can > >>>>>>>>be > >>>>>>>> diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1. Asif Kabani > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2. Rudi Vansnick > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. > >>>>>>>>Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Dear All, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the > >>>>>>>>>MAG, > >>>>>>>>> here is an update: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. Adame Peake > >>>>>>>>> 2. Ian Peter > >>>>>>>>> 3. Kossi Amessinou > >>>>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection > >>>>>>>>>can be > >>>>>>>>> diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. Asif Kabani > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. Rudi Vansnick > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>____________________________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>____________________________________________________________ > >>>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>____________________________________________________________ > >>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>>> > >>>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>>>To > > edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>____________________________________________________________ > >>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>> > >>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>>> > >>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>____________________________________________________________ > >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>>For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>____________________________________________________________ > >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>>For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>____________________________________________________________ > >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>To be removed from the list, visit: > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >>For all other list information and functions, see: > >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > Marília Maciel > > Pesquisadora Gestora > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > > > Researcher and Coordinator > > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > > > > > DiploFoundation associate > > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Nov 26 13:23:38 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:23:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Request for input on civil society representatives for the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" In-Reply-To: <20131126185935.4b4b265e@quill> References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill>,<20131126185935.4b4b265e@quill> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2B976A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Norbert, everyone, Glad to see everyone's focus on urgent tasks at hand. My 1 cent on '"Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" - with all due respect to everyone else nominated who are great and no doubt will do great if selected as cs representative. Put Milton on and we get one thing accomplished, which is further internationalization of ICANN. Let's do it. The other CS selection has a heavy load because she or he has to ensure all other CS priorities are addressed, admittedly. But at least we get one thing done when the historical window is open. 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, November 26, 2013 12:59 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Request for input on civil society representatives for the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" Dear all Here's a quick update... So far, in addition the following have been suggested, some in public postings, some privately: Anju Mangal, Grace Githaiga, Judy Okite, Nnenna Nwakanma, Michael Gurstein, Thomas Lowenhaupt. I have written to each of them to enquire about their willingness to serve on this "Panel". So far, Grace Githaiga, Michael Gurstein, and Thomas Lowenhaupt have replied positively. Please note that the deadline for any additional suggestions is rather soon. In regard to the question that has been raised about process: This is right now an ad hoc process aimed at making --in a way that is coordinated across civil society networks as well as we can in a very tight timeframe-- a demand for increased civil society representation on the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation"; this is not directly related to 1net nor to any of the various committees that will need to be formed in view of the Global Meeting in Brazil. I certainly hope that it will be possible to set up a proper NomCom process for those selection tasks, and that we'll find a way to do that in a way that is again coordinated across civil society networks. Greetings, Norbert Am Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:56:57 +0100 schrieb Norbert Bollow : > Dear all, > > there is now an informal coordination group of some kind (tentatively > called "steering committee", although I expect that that name will > probably be changed) consisting of Anriette Esterhuysen for APC, > Jeremy Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for NCSG, Virginia Paque for > DIPLO, myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as facilitator. > > The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society representation > on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" organized > by ICANN [1]. > > [1] > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html > > The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional > civil society people for this panel. > > The following names have been suggested so far: > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, > Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. > > In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you wish > to be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow Tuesday > which is about 24 hours from now.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Tue Nov 26 15:18:22 2013 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 20:18:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) In-Reply-To: <75A2430A-8030-450F-A3C0-5348F7B0A935@hserus.net> References: ,<75A2430A-8030-450F-A3C0-5348F7B0A935@hserus.net> Message-ID: SureshYou raise an important point worth quoting: "When you have a convention you need enabling legislation around it, which if it does not exist, has all to be drafted from scratch, and hopefully drafted so as to be harmonized with the laws drafted in other signatories to the convention". This is useful info. Thanks alot. Subject: Re: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) From: suresh at hserus.net Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 06:48:16 +0530 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; ggithaiga at hotmail.com I would agree with SM that there are sections on data protection, copyright bolted on, and electronic transaction security / spam are specifically referenced here rather than implied in the Budapest convention (where it is quite possible to have inter agency cooperation across countries to arrest a criminal spammer, and this has happened in the past) This is more due to the unique needs of africa I would say. When you have a convention you need enabling legislation around it, which if it does not exist, has all to be drafted from scratch, and hopefully drafted so as to be harmonized with the laws drafted in other signatories to the convention. What differences SM pointed out are related to this different maturity level of the laws in various African countries, --srs (iPad) On 26-Nov-2013, at 2:17, Grace Githaiga wrote: Dear SureshThe points you raise are very useful and I will put them in our reporting matrix. Further, I copy a message here on the difference between the Budapest and AU Convention as outlined by one SM. It was a response to Jean Paul but it never came onto the list. Lets keep this debate live. RgdsGrace From: SM (sm at resistor.net) To: Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA, Grace Githaiga Cc: internetgovtech at iab.org Hi Jean Paul, At 21:54 24-11-2013, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: >Thank you Grace for sharing those updates about the African Union >Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) >Just last week ( 21 and 22 November 2013) , the National >Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of Burundi ( I am burundian >based in Burundi) has conducted a sensitisation workshop about the >issue of cybersecurity. The (European) Convention on Cybercrime is different from the (African Union) draft convention on the confidence and security in cyberspace. The former is somewhat about computer-related offences, content-related offences and offences related to infringements of copyright and related rights. As a quick note, it seems that the draft convention tries to cover consumer protection, intellectual property rights, personal data and information systems. It is a bit odd to mix all that with legislation to tackle activities which are legislated as criminal activities. The differences between the convention and this draft convention are that the latter: - tries to solve the spam problem - includes electronic transaction - includes a legal framework for personal data protection The scope of the draft convention is broad. The draft convention does not have any text about lawful interception. That can be used to address the problems the draft convention attempts to solve. The drawback is that it might entail less personal data protection. Regards, -sm To: ggithaiga at hotmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org From: suresh at hserus.net Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 06:58:01 +0530 Subject: Re: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Hi Grace About I8 to I10 as I have worked extensively on spam at a technical and policy level since the late 90s I8 : This is a convention and not an international law. It provides a criterion that nations in the American will commit to harmonize their current (or more likely proposed, in large parts of Africa) to be uniform on this and other provisions. In this case, it advocates transparency in direct marketing offers which is a best practice I9 : this is an optin law, which is respectful of user privacy and doesn't allow the sending of unsolicited bulk email, which is the canonical definition of spam. This should not restrict itself to marketing but cover other sorts of bulk mail sent by other organizations or individuals. The law should be content neutral and cover all forms of unsolicited bulk email rather than just marketing mail. I10 : this is a standard prior business relationship exception to make compliance simpler The articles also need to additionally cover criminal forms of spam as the 419 scam, phishing etc. They additionally need to specify penalties both for the organization that commissioned the spam and the marketing agency they contracted with to actually send the spam. Specific language that would be appropriate is in the Australian spam act of 2003 and in the proposed Canadian antispam law, both of which were drafted after open, consultative and multistakeholder processes in the respective countries, including inputs from respected privacy groups. Before that, data protection and net anonymity have to be carefully balanced to log data but retain it under strict controls and regulation of how it can be used (in accordance with privacy regulations). If you legislate blanket anonymity then scam artists and cybercriminals will extensively abuse it to remain undetected. These are a first set of thoughts --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Grace Githaiga" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 3:30 AM IGC and Bestbits Listers I write to you to seek your views on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014. In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and ISOC-KE, and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and ISOC -Uganda, starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. RgdsGrace Below is the announcement made on the multiple lists. 1. Background to the African Union Convention on Cyber Security (AUCC) African Union (AU) convention (52 page document) seeks to intensify the fight against cybercrime across Africa in light of increase in cybercrime, and a lack of mastery of security risks by African countries. Further, that one challenge for African countries is lack of technological security adequate enough to prevent and effectively control technological and informational risks. As such “African States are in dire need of innovative criminal policy strategies that embody States, societal and technical responses to create a credible legal climate for cyber security”. The Convention establishes a framework for cybersecurity in Africa “through organisation of electronic transactions, protection of personal data, promotion of cyber security, e-governance and combating cybercrime” (Conceptual framework). 2. Division of the Convention Part 1 Electronic transactions Section I: Definition of terms Section II: Electronic Commerce (Fields of application of electronic commerce, Contractual responsibility of the electronic provider of goods and services). Section III: Publicity by electronic means. Section IV: Obligations in electronic form (Electronic contracts, Written matter in electronic form, Ensuring the security of electronic transactions). Part II PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION Section I: Definition Section II: Legal framework for personal data protection (Objectives of this Convention with respect to personal data, Scope of application of the Convention, Preliminary formalities for personal data processing). Section III: Institutional framework for protection of personal data (Status, composition or organization, Functions of the protection authority). Section IV: Obligations relating to the conditions governing the processing of personal data (basic principles governing the processing of personal data, Specific principles governing the processing of sensitive data, Interconnection of personal data files). Section V: The rights of the person whose personal data are to be processed (Right to information, Right of access, Right of opposition, Right of correction or suppression). Section VI: Obligations of the personal data processing official (Confidentiality obligations, Security obligations, Conservation obligations, Sustainability obligations). PART III – PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AND COMBATING CYBERCRIME Section 1: Terminology, National cyber security framework, Legislative measures, National cyber security system, National cyber security monitoring structures). Section II: Material penal law (Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies [Attack on, computerized data, Content related offenses], Adapting certain information and communication technologies offenses). Section II: Criminal liability for corporate persons (Adapting certain sanctions to the Information and Communication Technologies, Other penal sanctions, Procedural law, Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies). PART IV: COMMON AND FINAL PROVISIONS Section I: Monitoring mechanism Section II: Final responses The Proposed Discussion We have picked on articles that need clarity, and would request listers to kindly discuss them and provide recommendations where necessary. Also, where necessary, listers are encouraged to identify and share other articles that need clarifications that we may have left out. Day 1 Monday 25/ 11/2013 We begin with Part 1 on Electronic transactions and pick on four articles which we will discuss on Monday (25/11) and Tuesday (26/11). Section III: Publicity by electronic means Article I – 7: Without prejudice to Article I-4 any advertising action, irrespective of its form, accessible through online communication service, shall be clearly identified as such. It shall clearly identify the individual or corporate body on behalf of whom it is undertaken. Question: Should net anonymity be legislated? If so, what measures need to be or not be considered? Question: Should individuals or companies be obliged to reveal their identities and what are the implications? Article I – 8: The conditions governing the possibility of promotional offers as well as the conditions for participating in promotional competitions or games where such offers, competitions or games are electronically disseminated, shall be clearly spelt out and easily accessible. Question: Should an international (or should we call it regional) law legislate on promotional offers and competitions offered locally? Day 2 Tuesday 26/11/13 Article I – 9: Direct marketing through any form of indirect communication including messages forwarded with automatic message sender, facsimile or electronic mails in whatsoever form, using the particulars of an individual who has not given prior consent to receiving the said direct marketing through the means indicated, shall be prohibited by the member states of the African Union. Article I – 10: The provisions of Article I – 9 above notwithstanding, direct marketing prospection by electronic mails shall be permissible where: 1) The particulars of the addressee have been obtained directly from him/her, 2) The recipient has given consent to be contacted by the prospector partners 3) The direct prospection concerns similar products or services provided by the same individual or corporate body. Question: Is this a realistic way of dealing with spam? Article I – 27 Where the legislative provisions of Member States have not laid down other provisions, and where there is no valid agreement between the parties, the judge shall resolve proof related conflicts by determining by all possibl____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Tue Nov 26 15:20:11 2013 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 20:20:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reporting template for Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) In-Reply-To: <1385441314.19915.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: ,<1385441314.19915.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Correct Jean Paul. These online discussions always bring out such useful and fresh information. And until there is a topic under discussion, you really never realize how resourceful listers can be. We continue to learn.RgdsGrace Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 04:48:34 +0000 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; suresh at hserus.net; ggithaiga at hotmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] Reporting template for Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Thank you Grace, I am really getting good information about the AUCC with this discussion. Regards NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 Le Lundi 25 novembre 2013 22h32, Grace Githaiga a écrit : Thanks Jean Paul for the update on the cybersecurity sensitization workshop in Burundi. Suresh has answered your query on the Budapest Convention. Thanks Suresh.My response to your other two questions:1. Who are the drafters of that Convention?This has been drafted by the African Union Commission. 2. How are African states involved? Which services at country level are involved?The information that African governments were involved though it is not clear at what level i.e. whether it is from the point of conceptualization, or after the draft had been developed. However, this is a question I will include in our reporting template and hope that AUC will provide us with the information on the process. I attach our reporting template.Once again, thank you so much and do keep this debate going.RgdsGraceTo: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; ggithaiga at hotmail.comFrom: suresh at hserus.netSubject: Re: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:59:25 +0530 It does appear that the au convention on a quick superficial reading does not substantially conflict with the Budapest convention. The advantage of joining the Budapest convention is harmonizing your local law with those of several countries around the world and also joining a network of mlats that make it easier for you to pursue cybercrime cases where the offender lives in another country that is a signatory to the convention. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message -----From: "Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Grace Githaiga" , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 11:24 AMHi all, Thank you Grace for sharing those updates about the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Just last week ( 21 and 22 November 2013) , the National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of Burundi ( I am burundian based in Burundi) has conducted a sensitisation workshop about the issue of cybersecurity. This workshop is the first step towards the drafting the cybersecurity law for Burundi. I attended it as a member of ISOC Burundi chapter. Speaking about international legal frameworks about cyber security, the invited expert raised the Budapest Convetion. Representatives of the regulatory authority said they were not aware of this convetion. I made an intervention and raised the fact that AU is drafting another convention. Then, we had some discussions : the advantages and disadvantages for a country like Burundi to sign the Budapest Convention, .... Allow me to ask some questions : Who are the drafters of that convention ? How are African states involved ? Which services at country level are involved ? My problem is that African countries may seek to sign the Budapest Convention and ignoring the AUCC. Best regards NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 Le Lundi 25 novembre 2013 3h28, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : Hi Grace About I8 to I10 as I have worked extensively on spam at a technical and policy level since the late 90s I8 : This is a convention and not an international law. It provides a criterion that nations in the American will commit to harmonize their current (or more likely proposed, in large parts of Africa) to be uniform on this and other provisions. In this case, it advocates transparency in direct marketing offers which is a best practice I9 : this is an optin law, which is respectful of user privacy and doesn't allow the sending of unsolicited bulk email, which is the canonical definition of spam. This should not restrict itself to marketing but cover other sorts of bulk mail sent by other organizations or individuals. The law should be content neutral and cover all forms of unsolicited bulk email rather than just marketing mail. I10 : this is a standard prior business relationship exception to make compliance simpler The articles also need to additionally cover criminal forms of spam as the 419 scam, phishing etc. They additionally need to specify penalties both for the organization that commissioned the spam and the marketing agency they contracted with to actually send the spam. Specific language that would be appropriate is in the Australian spam act of 2003 and in the proposed Canadian antispam law, both of which were drafted after open, consultative and multistakeholder processes in the respective countries, including inputs from respected privacy groups. Before that, data protection and net anonymity have to be carefully balanced to log data but retain it under strict controls and regulation of how it can be used (in accordance with privacy regulations). If you legislate blanket anonymity then scam artists and cybercriminals will extensively abuse it to remain undetected. These are a first set of thoughts --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Grace Githaiga" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 3:30 AM IGC and Bestbits Listers I write to you to seek your views on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014. In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and ISOC-KE, and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and ISOC -Uganda, starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. RgdsGrace Below is the announcement ma ____________________________________________________________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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 15:49:35 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:49:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Request for input on civil society representatives for the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2B976A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> <20131126185935.4b4b265e@quill> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2B976A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: + 1 for inclusion of Milton. May I use this opportunity to solicit to Milton to accept the nomination into the 'Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation' if contacted. Accept my esteemed regards. Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Norbert, everyone, > > Glad to see everyone's focus on urgent tasks at hand. > > My 1 cent on '"Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" - with > all due respect to everyone else nominated who are great and no doubt will > do great if selected as cs representative. > > Put Milton on and we get one thing accomplished, which is further > internationalization of ICANN. Let's do it. > > The other CS selection has a heavy load because she or he has to ensure > all other CS priorities are addressed, admittedly. > > But at least we get one thing done when the historical window is open. > > 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, November 26, 2013 12:59 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Request for input on civil society > representatives for the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" > > Dear all > > Here's a quick update... > > So far, in addition the following have been suggested, some in public > postings, some privately: > > Anju Mangal, Grace Githaiga, Judy Okite, Nnenna Nwakanma, Michael > Gurstein, Thomas Lowenhaupt. > > I have written to each of them to enquire about their willingness to > serve on this "Panel". So far, Grace Githaiga, Michael Gurstein, > and Thomas Lowenhaupt have replied positively. > > Please note that the deadline for any additional suggestions is rather > soon. > > In regard to the question that has been raised about process: This is > right now an ad hoc process aimed at making --in a way that is > coordinated across civil society networks as well as we can in a very > tight timeframe-- a demand for increased civil society representation > on the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation"; this is > not directly related to 1net nor to any of the various committees that > will need to be formed in view of the Global Meeting in Brazil. I > certainly hope that it will be possible to set up a proper NomCom > process for those selection tasks, and that we'll find a way to do that > in a way that is again coordinated across civil society networks. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:56:57 +0100 > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > > > Dear all, > > > > there is now an informal coordination group of some kind (tentatively > > called "steering committee", although I expect that that name will > > probably be changed) consisting of Anriette Esterhuysen for APC, > > Jeremy Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for NCSG, Virginia Paque for > > DIPLO, myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as facilitator. > > > > The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society representation > > on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" organized > > by ICANN [1]. > > > > [1] > > > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html > > > > The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional > > civil society people for this panel. > > > > The following names have been suggested so far: > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, > > Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. > > > > In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you wish > > to be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow Tuesday > > which is about 24 hours from now.) > > > > 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Nov 26 16:10:04 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 22:10:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Request for input on civil society representatives for the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" In-Reply-To: <20131126185935.4b4b265e@quill> References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> <20131126185935.4b4b265e@quill> Message-ID: <4C31E068-5B06-4652-9B4F-1285422181AF@uzh.ch> Hi When Fadi was told last weekend in BA that there had been expressions of discontent on various IG lists about the lack of CS representation, he said ok, send me a name from the community. I didn’t understand this as an ironclad commitment that they’d automatically appoint any name we provided, but rather as an invitation to suggest someone we think would be good (on a panel of CEOs and politicians). Now it’s been decided to demand that two people be empaneled, and a widening search for names is underway. Has anyone been in touch with Fadi or President Ilves to let them know what we’re doing and get their reaction? As the first meeting of the HLP is in two weeks, one imagines the planning is well underway, so it would be good for them to know what to expect, when…. Best, Bill On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Dear all > > Here's a quick update... > > So far, in addition the following have been suggested, some in public > postings, some privately: > > Anju Mangal, Grace Githaiga, Judy Okite, Nnenna Nwakanma, Michael > Gurstein, Thomas Lowenhaupt. > > I have written to each of them to enquire about their willingness to > serve on this "Panel". So far, Grace Githaiga, Michael Gurstein, > and Thomas Lowenhaupt have replied positively. > > Please note that the deadline for any additional suggestions is rather > soon. > > In regard to the question that has been raised about process: This is > right now an ad hoc process aimed at making --in a way that is > coordinated across civil society networks as well as we can in a very > tight timeframe-- a demand for increased civil society representation > on the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation"; this is > not directly related to 1net nor to any of the various committees that > will need to be formed in view of the Global Meeting in Brazil. I > certainly hope that it will be possible to set up a proper NomCom > process for those selection tasks, and that we'll find a way to do that > in a way that is again coordinated across civil society networks. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:56:57 +0100 > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > >> Dear all, >> >> there is now an informal coordination group of some kind (tentatively >> called "steering committee", although I expect that that name will >> probably be changed) consisting of Anriette Esterhuysen for APC, >> Jeremy Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for NCSG, Virginia Paque for >> DIPLO, myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as facilitator. >> >> The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society representation >> on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" organized >> by ICANN [1]. >> >> [1] >> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html >> >> The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional >> civil society people for this panel. >> >> The following names have been suggested so far: >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, >> Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. >> >> In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you wish >> to be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow Tuesday >> which is about 24 hours from now.) >> >> 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 ********************************************************** 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 (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), 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 ca at cafonso.ca Tue Nov 26 16:25:03 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:25:03 -0200 Subject: [governance] Brazil meeting -- press release In-Reply-To: <2B591614-6A75-45F5-BD18-B70436F862B4@ipjustice.org> References: <2B591614-6A75-45F5-BD18-B70436F862B4@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <529511AF.3020804@cafonso.ca> Dear people, below is the translation of the CGI.br press release regarding the Brazil Meeting. fraternal regards --c.a. =============== November 26th 2013 Announcement of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee about the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance President Dilma Rousseff’s speech at the United Nations and the Montevideo Statement [1] prompted the opportunity to discuss proposals on a new Internet governance, which became possible by the Brazilian initiative to host the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance. The meeting is scheduled for 23 and 24 April 2014, in São Paulo, and will be organized in a partnership between CGI.br and international entities representing the different sectors involved with Internet governance. The meeting represents an opportunity for government leaders and representatives from different global sectors to discuss proposals about Internet governance and development. The purpose of that meeting is to pursue consensus about universally accepted government principles and to improve their institutional framework. The event shall have the participation of governments, civil society, academy, international organisms and entities, as well as technical and business communities. “We would like to thank the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee for its role organizing that meeting. I genuinely believe that the global Internet community will gather in this truly multistakeholder opportunity with the goal of shaping the future towards the continued prosperity and growth of the Internet”, said Adiel A. Akplogan, CEO at AfriNIC and coordinator of 1Net. President Roussef nominated Prof. Virgílio Fernandes Almeida, Coordinator of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and Secretary for Informatics Policies, to coordinate the organization for that meeting. “The Internet Steering Committee acknowledges the opportunity to discuss new paths for the global Internet governance and appreciates the importance of a multistakeholder meeting for those discussions”, said Professor Virgílio Almeida. Four committees shall be created in order to warrant the event’s success. The committees will have the support of a shared secretary, which shall help them to conduct their work and to coordinate the communications. The four meeting committees are: 1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the political articulation and fostering the involvement of the international community. 2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for organizing the event, including the agenda discussion and execution, and for the treatment of the proposals from participants and different stakeholders; 3. Logistics and Organizational Committee: Responsible for overseeing every logistic aspect of the meeting; 4. Governmental Advisory Committee: Will stay open to all governments which want to contribute to the meeting. The meeting will allow face-to-face and remote participation of the global community. Mechanisms and the schedule for receiving inputs of the global community will be established. E-Mail for contact and input => info at cgi.br =========== [1] http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/a-07oct13-en.htm -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Nov 26 16:43:37 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:43:37 -0200 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT In-Reply-To: <20131126190615.35937488@quill> References: <1384066968.48757.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385452712.44293.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385474149.36657.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385478759.76641.YahooMailNeo@web164002.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20131126190615.35937488@quill> Message-ID: Hi Norbert, I realize now that the e-mail is a bit old. As it came back, I thought IGC was still in need of volunteers. My mistake :) M On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Kivuva is right-- the MAG renewal NomCom is already constituted and > I'm sure hard at work, as their deadline is coming soon. > > There's a lot of further selection tasks looming but no call for > NomCom volunteers has been published yet for those selection tasks. > > I hope to find a way to coordinate NomCom creation with other major > civil society networks. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:47:53 +0000 > schrieb Kivuva : > > > Dear José, Shoki and Marilia, you are loosing me. I thought NomCom was > > constituted sometimes back? > > > > On 26/11/2013, Zeeshan shoki wrote: > > > I would like to Volunteer for MAG NomCom. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Zeeshan Shoki > > > Chief Executive > > > PAK Education Society/ > > > Pakistan Development Network > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 7:08 PM, Marilia Maciel > > > wrote: > > > > > > I volunteer for the NomCom. > > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah > > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Salanieta, the IGC CS Coordinator. > > >>Thanks for your intimation about the conflict appeared at IGC CS, > > >>and > > >> observed by the NomCom Chair. > > >>I would also like add (to the observation) that I also have submit > > >>my name > > >> to Best Bits as well. > > >> > > >> > > >>Please let me understand first about the complications and > > >>objections on my > > >> Open & Transparent candidacy. > > >> > > >> > > >>I will give you my response promptly and very shortly. > > >> > > >> > > >>Thanking you and Best Regards > > >> > > >> > > >>Imran Ahmed Shah > > >> > > >>>________________________________ > > >>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >>> > > >>>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > > >>>; Imran > > >>> Ahmed Shah > > >>>Cc: Ian Peter > > >>>Sent: Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 18:05 > > >>> > > >>>Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees > > >>>(Call for > > >>> names) URGENT > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Dear Imran, > > >>> > > >>>There is no written rule saying that you cannot apply both via the > > >>>IGC > > >>> NomCom or through Diplo or directly to the IGF Secretariat but it > > >>> allows for the systems to be gamed and gives you an unusual > > >>> advantage. It would mean that you do not trust any one mechanism > > >>> and would like to increase the probability of being selected. > > >>> This is precisely why I have been asking other civil society > > >>> organisations to consider having one joint process to select > > >>> representatives to things like the MAG etc. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Given that the NomCom Chair would have received your notice, he > > >>>would have > > >>> to consider this and perhaps give you the option of selecting one > > >>> forum for selection. This could possibly mean that if you select > > >>> the IGC that you would withdraw your nomination from Diplo or the > > >>> reverse. This will allow for people not to question the process > > >>> and NomCom selection. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Hope you are well though and in excellent health. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah > > >>> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>Dear All Fellows at IGC CS. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>With reference to my self nomination at Diplo Internet Governance > > >>>>Blog, I > > >>>> would require your support for the endorsement to my > > >>>> slef-nomination for IGC CS as well as on Diplo Internet > > >>>> Governance Blog. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>I also have updated my profile on Diplo Internet Governance Online > > >>>> Blog. > > >>>>url > http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/nomination-for-igf-mag-2014 > . > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>Please read the Diplo post about the 2014 MAG endorsement process. > > >>>> > > >>>>As per Diplo community recommendations (endorsements) will be > > >>>>calculated > > >>>> using the following criteria: > > >>>> > > >>>>40% - results of poll Click here to take the survey. > > >>>>20% - experience in IG global policy processes, including efforts > > >>>>such as > > >>>> APC, IGC, Diplo discussions, regional work and other work. Please > > >>>> describe these activities in your post > > >>>>10% - representation from least developed countries > > >>>>10% - representation from small island states > > >>>>10% - representation from countries never before represented on > > >>>>the MAG 10% - gender (to support gender balance and more women on > > >>>>the MAG) > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>Initially candidate nominees for IGF MAG would require community > > >>>>support > > >>>> reflection through a Survey/Poll Click here to take the survey. > > >>>>So, would you like to spare few minutes to submit your preference > > >>>>about > > >>>> candidates through this Survey Click here to take the survey. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>Thanking you and Best Regards > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>Imran Ahmed Shah > > >>>>Member Internet Governance Caucus and Best Bits > > >>>>Founding President IGF Pakistan > > >>>>NCUC Member (since 2009) > > >>>>ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>>________________________________ > > >>>>> From: Imran Ahmed Shah > > >>>>>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > > >>>>>; > > >>>>> Jeremy Hunsinger ; Sonigitu Ekpe > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 12:02 > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees > > >>>>>(Call for > > >>>>> names) URGENT > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Dear All, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>With reference to the following Call for the Nominations (for > > >>>>>IGF MAG), > > >>>>> and subsequent messages from Mr Izumi Aizu & Ms Salanieta > > >>>>> Tamanikaiwaimaro, I would nominate myself for the IGF MAG. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>I recently has organized a workshop at AP regional IGF 2013 at > > >>>>>Seoul > > >>>>> with the title of Governance for the Internet of Kids, > > >>>>> Teenagers and Youngsters. Workshop detail & my profile may be > > >>>>> find at APrIGF Website > > >>>>> (http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-32/ , http://2013.rigf.asia/day3/ > and http://2013.rigf.asia/speakers-profiles/#Imran). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Further information as mentioned for EOI, I will arrange to > > >>>>>submit to > > >>>>> the Coordinators and MAG Nomcom. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Thanking you and Best Regards > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Imran Ahmed Shah > > >>>>>Member Internet Governance Caucus > > >>>>>Founding President IGF Pakistan > > >>>>>NCUC Member (since 2009) > > >>>>>ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>________________________________ > > >>>>>> From: Sonigitu Ekpe > > >>>>>>To: Jeremy Hunsinger ; > > >>>>>>governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, > > >>>>>>11:59 Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG > > >>>>>>nominees (Call for > > >>>>>> names) URGENT > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>I volunteer to serve on the MAG. > > >>>>>>Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > >>>>>>"Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, > > >>>>>>positively." +234 8027510179 > > >>>>>>On Nov 10, 2013 5:37 AM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" > > >>>>>>wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>I can do nomcom > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the > > >>>>>>>MAG, here > > >>>>>>> is an update: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 1. Adame Peake > > >>>>>>>> 2. Ian Peter > > >>>>>>>> 3. Kossi Amessinou > > >>>>>>>>[We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom] > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection can > > >>>>>>>>be > > >>>>>>>> diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 1. Asif Kabani > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 2. Rudi Vansnick > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. > > >>>>>>>>Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>Dear All, > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the > > >>>>>>>>>MAG, > > >>>>>>>>> here is an update: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> 1. Adame Peake > > >>>>>>>>> 2. Ian Peter > > >>>>>>>>> 3. Kossi Amessinou > > >>>>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection > > >>>>>>>>>can be > > >>>>>>>>> diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> 1. Asif Kabani > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> 2. Rudi Vansnick > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>____________________________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >>>>>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: > > >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: > > >>>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >>>>>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>____________________________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >>>>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: > > >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: > > >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >>>>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>____________________________________________________________ > > >>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >>>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: > > >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: > > >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >>>>>>To > > > edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>____________________________________________________________ > > >>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: > > >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >>>>> > > >>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: > > >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>____________________________________________________________ > > >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >>>>To be removed from the list, visit: > > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >>>> > > >>>>For all other list information and functions, see: > > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >>>> > > >>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>____________________________________________________________ > > >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >>>To be removed from the list, visit: > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >>> > > >>>For all other list information and functions, see: > > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >>> > > >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>____________________________________________________________ > > >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >>To be removed from the list, visit: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >> > > >>For all other list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >> > > >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Marília Maciel > > > Pesquisadora Gestora > > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > > > > > Researcher and Coordinator > > > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > > > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > > > > > > > > DiploFoundation associate > > > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From robin at ipjustice.org Tue Nov 26 16:47:37 2013 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:47:37 -0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Request for input on civil society representatives for the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" In-Reply-To: <4C31E068-5B06-4652-9B4F-1285422181AF@uzh.ch> References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> <20131126185935.4b4b265e@quill> <4C31E068-5B06-4652-9B4F-1285422181AF@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <95BEA45B-89C1-4850-8EC8-08ED48DE7FD3@ipjustice.org> Yes, I have let Fadi know that several global civil society networks are working together to send him 2 names by this week's end to represent us on the High Level Panel next month. Thanks, Robin On Nov 26, 2013, at 1:10 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > When Fadi was told last weekend in BA that there had been expressions of discontent on various IG lists about the lack of CS representation, he said ok, send me a name from the community. I didn’t understand this as an ironclad commitment that they’d automatically appoint any name we provided, but rather as an invitation to suggest someone we think would be good (on a panel of CEOs and politicians). Now it’s been decided to demand that two people be empaneled, and a widening search for names is underway. Has anyone been in touch with Fadi or President Ilves to let them know what we’re doing and get their reaction? As the first meeting of the HLP is in two weeks, one imagines the planning is well underway, so it would be good for them to know what to expect, when…. > > Best, > > Bill > > > On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> Here's a quick update... >> >> So far, in addition the following have been suggested, some in public >> postings, some privately: >> >> Anju Mangal, Grace Githaiga, Judy Okite, Nnenna Nwakanma, Michael >> Gurstein, Thomas Lowenhaupt. >> >> I have written to each of them to enquire about their willingness to >> serve on this "Panel". So far, Grace Githaiga, Michael Gurstein, >> and Thomas Lowenhaupt have replied positively. >> >> Please note that the deadline for any additional suggestions is rather >> soon. >> >> In regard to the question that has been raised about process: This is >> right now an ad hoc process aimed at making --in a way that is >> coordinated across civil society networks as well as we can in a very >> tight timeframe-- a demand for increased civil society representation >> on the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation"; this is >> not directly related to 1net nor to any of the various committees that >> will need to be formed in view of the Global Meeting in Brazil. I >> certainly hope that it will be possible to set up a proper NomCom >> process for those selection tasks, and that we'll find a way to do that >> in a way that is again coordinated across civil society networks. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Am Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:56:57 +0100 >> schrieb Norbert Bollow : >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> there is now an informal coordination group of some kind (tentatively >>> called "steering committee", although I expect that that name will >>> probably be changed) consisting of Anriette Esterhuysen for APC, >>> Jeremy Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for NCSG, Virginia Paque for >>> DIPLO, myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as facilitator. >>> >>> The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society representation >>> on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" organized >>> by ICANN [1]. >>> >>> [1] >>> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html >>> >>> The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional >>> civil society people for this panel. >>> >>> The following names have been suggested so far: >>> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, >>> Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. >>> >>> In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you wish >>> to be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow Tuesday >>> which is about 24 hours from now.) >>> >>> 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 > > ********************************************************** > 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 (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 16:59:24 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:59:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Request for input on civil society representatives for the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" In-Reply-To: <4C31E068-5B06-4652-9B4F-1285422181AF@uzh.ch> References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> <20131126185935.4b4b265e@quill> <4C31E068-5B06-4652-9B4F-1285422181AF@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Strange and confusing, indeed. The last line of the PR Newswire pieces on this panel (as per the URL forwarded initially) reads: "Additional members to be confirmed." And all what we hear next is "hurry up and give your blessing to the list of names that a handful number of us have _informally_ agreed on." One would have hoped that IGC co-cos would provide some feedback of the kind Bill just provided as well as the clarification he asked for. On the other hand, I can't even count how many times now I have read something like "we will set up a proper NomCom process" blah blah. It's not as if we've been busy doing some productive substantive work in IGC. Informal and ad hoc, that's how we roll these days across CS. For the two names that have been asked for, I'd suggest: 1) Milton Mueller 2) Your choice Mawaki On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:10 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > When Fadi was told last weekend in BA that there had been expressions of > discontent on various IG lists about the lack of CS representation, he said > ok, send me a name from the community. I didn’t understand this as an > ironclad commitment that they’d automatically appoint any name we provided, > but rather as an invitation to suggest someone we think would be good (on a > panel of CEOs and politicians). Now it’s been decided to demand that two > people be empaneled, and a widening search for names is underway. Has > anyone been in touch with Fadi or President Ilves to let them know what > we’re doing and get their reaction? As the first meeting of the HLP is in > two weeks, one imagines the planning is well underway, so it would be good > for them to know what to expect, when…. > > Best, > > Bill > > > On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Dear all > > Here's a quick update... > > So far, in addition the following have been suggested, some in public > postings, some privately: > > Anju Mangal, Grace Githaiga, Judy Okite, Nnenna Nwakanma, Michael > Gurstein, Thomas Lowenhaupt. > > I have written to each of them to enquire about their willingness to > serve on this "Panel". So far, Grace Githaiga, Michael Gurstein, > and Thomas Lowenhaupt have replied positively. > > Please note that the deadline for any additional suggestions is rather > soon. > > In regard to the question that has been raised about process: This is > right now an ad hoc process aimed at making --in a way that is > coordinated across civil society networks as well as we can in a very > tight timeframe-- a demand for increased civil society representation > on the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation"; this is > not directly related to 1net nor to any of the various committees that > will need to be formed in view of the Global Meeting in Brazil. I > certainly hope that it will be possible to set up a proper NomCom > process for those selection tasks, and that we'll find a way to do that > in a way that is again coordinated across civil society networks. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:56:57 +0100 > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > > Dear all, > > there is now an informal coordination group of some kind (tentatively > called "steering committee", although I expect that that name will > probably be changed) consisting of Anriette Esterhuysen for APC, > Jeremy Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for NCSG, Virginia Paque for > DIPLO, myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as facilitator. > > The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society representation > on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" organized > by ICANN [1]. > > [1] > > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html > > The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional > civil society people for this panel. > > The following names have been suggested so far: > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, > Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. > > In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you wish > to be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow Tuesday > which is about 24 hours from now.) > > 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 > > > ********************************************************** > 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 (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 26 17:07:04 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:07:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20131126162411.4422a2ea@quill> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <20131126162411.4422a2ea@quill> Message-ID: Norbert, On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > On the pad, someone is suggesting to change > > "1) Internationalisation of ICANN and IANA: The Global Meeting > should aim at develping a concrete solution how the desired > internationalization can be achieved." > > to > > "1) Internationalisation of ICANN and IANA: The Global Meeting should > aim at developing a number of possible solutions on how this desired > internationalization can be achieved." > > > I'd like to request the author of this change to explain the reasoning > behind it. Have I violated your anti-american orthodoxy? the reasoning behind the change is that this meeting is NOT supposed to come up with concrete solutions. It is supposed to discuss high level principles IIRC. Looking in the archives, I see this from S. Bellagama: From the presidential website: (http://blog.planalto.gov.br/brasil-vai-sediar-reuniao-internacional-sobre-governanca-da-internet-em-abril-de-2014/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=brasil-vai-sediar-reuniao-internacional-sobre-governanca-da-internet-em-abril-de-2014) Brazil will host international meeting on Internet governance in April 2014 The Ministers of Foreign Affairs , Luiz Alberto Figueiredo ; Communications , Paulo Bernardo; and Science , Technology and Innovation , Marco Antonio Raupp , announced on Monday ( 18 ) , during a press conference that Brazil will host an international conference on Internet governance on 23rd and April 24, 2014 . According to Paulo Bernardo, the meeting should take place in São Paulo . The goal, according to Figueiredo , is organizing a multi-stakeholder meeting to seek common understandings about the subject . "The goal of the conference is a broad discussion of all stakeholders and sectors directly linked to the internet Governments , businesses , academia, civil society. We are acting internationally for the protection of human rights. This is the main guidance from our government, to protect freedom of expression, human rights and privacy. We are determined to continue on this path", said Figueiredo . The purpose of the meeting was arranged at a hearing of President Dilma Rousseff with the CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) , Fadi Chehadé , on October 9th. In this occasion, he said that came "to discuss with her how to achieve practical solutions starting from her her vision for the future, because the world's confidence in the global Internet was injured" and that the idea of the conference was to "discuss how together we set the grounds for our work in governing the internet". > > My current perspective is that the main benefit of a high-level meeting > as seems to be planned for Brazil should be that it could provide an > opportunity to reach a decision on choosing a specific solution > from among the various possibilities. I think your current perspective is incorrect. > > If the choice is not made then and there, when and where will it be > made? I suspect it will go through a number of iterations of meetings/discussions both pre- and post Brazil. I don't mind if NTIA no longer has a say in authorizing root zone changes, but I do strongly object to an elite group of folk getting together (3 per country?) to make this change. -- 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 anriette at apc.org Tue Nov 26 17:46:05 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:46:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Brazil meeting -- press release In-Reply-To: <529511AF.3020804@cafonso.ca> References: <2B591614-6A75-45F5-BD18-B70436F862B4@ipjustice.org> <529511AF.3020804@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <529524AD.801@apc.org> Thank you very much for this c.a. Does this mean that we no longer need to address our concerns about civil society participation to 1net but that rather we can engage constructively with CGI.br? Anriette On 26/11/2013 23:25, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear people, below is the translation of the CGI.br press release > regarding the Brazil Meeting. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > =============== > November 26th 2013 > > Announcement of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee about the > Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance > > President Dilma Rousseff’s speech at the United Nations and the > Montevideo Statement [1] prompted the opportunity to discuss proposals > on a new Internet governance, which became possible by the Brazilian > initiative to host the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet > Governance. The meeting is scheduled for 23 and 24 April 2014, in São > Paulo, and will be organized in a partnership between CGI.br and > international entities representing the different sectors involved with > Internet governance. > > The meeting represents an opportunity for government leaders and > representatives from different global sectors to discuss proposals about > Internet governance and development. The purpose of that meeting is to > pursue consensus about universally accepted government principles and to > improve their institutional framework. > > The event shall have the participation of governments, civil society, > academy, international organisms and entities, as well as technical and > business communities. > > “We would like to thank the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee for > its role organizing that meeting. I genuinely believe that the global > Internet community will gather in this truly multistakeholder > opportunity with the goal of shaping the future towards the continued > prosperity and growth of the Internet”, said Adiel A. Akplogan, CEO at > AfriNIC and coordinator of 1Net. > > President Roussef nominated Prof. Virgílio Fernandes Almeida, > Coordinator of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and Secretary > for Informatics Policies, to coordinate the organization for that meeting. > > “The Internet Steering Committee acknowledges the opportunity to discuss > new paths for the global Internet governance and appreciates the > importance of a multistakeholder meeting for those discussions”, said > Professor Virgílio Almeida. > > Four committees shall be created in order to warrant the event’s > success. The committees will have the support of a shared secretary, > which shall help them to conduct their work and to coordinate the > communications. > > The four meeting committees are: > > 1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the > political articulation and fostering the involvement of the > international community. > > 2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for organizing the > event, including the agenda discussion and execution, and for the > treatment of the proposals from participants and different stakeholders; > > 3. Logistics and Organizational Committee: Responsible for overseeing > every logistic aspect of the meeting; > > 4. Governmental Advisory Committee: Will stay open to all governments > which want to contribute to the meeting. > > The meeting will allow face-to-face and remote participation of the > global community. Mechanisms and the schedule for receiving inputs of > the global community will be established. > > E-Mail for contact and input => info at cgi.br > > =========== > > [1] http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/a-07oct13-en.htm > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 27 00:57:08 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:27:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Request for input on civil society representatives for the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" In-Reply-To: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> Message-ID: <529589B4.8020608@itforchange.net> We must remember that entering into a process of nominating people for membership of the HLL many amount to according a certain legitimacy to it.... Are we sure we give it that kind of legitimacy. One does not know at present who appointed the members of the HLL.... On what criteria, and so on... Would getting one member of CS that we nominate on the HLL really change much.... Would that not, to some extend, put a certain level of moral obligation on us vis a vis the final outcomes of the HLL... I am not ready to accept such an obligation. One of the major issues behind the Brazil meeting is to decide thing about ICANN, its internationalisation/ oversight etc.... We should certainly listen to ICANN itself on this... There may also be some use to hear out an experts panel put up by the ICANN. But that is as far as it goes.... In the circumstances, we must be very cautious about what we are doing here.... If they have specifically asked us to suggest one CS person, we may offer one, but we must make it clear that we do not consider the HLL as any kind of genuine multistakeholder representative structure and so on..... The HLL announcement already wrongly asserts this as a kind of multilateralists initiative, when it is not so.... It is a panel of experts chosen by ICANN. Also As I write this, just now saw Bill's latest email on this issue - we are perhaps overplaying a casual remark of Fadi.... I dont really think that when we are not even sure they want us to nominate someone, and would accept the nomination, we should be getting too formal about it. Remember, Fadi said in Bali that this HLL will actually be constituted on a bottom up way.... then they just went ahead and announced the names.... Are we happy with this process. I am not. parminder On Tuesday 26 November 2013 04:26 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Dear all, > > there is now an informal coordination group of some kind (tentatively > called "steering committee", although I expect that that name will > probably be changed) consisting of Anriette Esterhuysen for APC, Jeremy > Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for NCSG, Virginia Paque for DIPLO, > myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as facilitator. > > The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society representation > on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" organized by > ICANN [1]. > > [1] > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html > > The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional civil > society people for this panel. > > The following names have been suggested so far: > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, > Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. > > In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you wish to > be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow Tuesday which > is about 24 hours from now.) > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 27 01:31:45 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:01:45 +0530 Subject: [I-coordination] [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257073F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257073F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <529591D1.7060409@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 26 November 2013 03:11 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > George > > Normally I would be very much in favor of shifting attention to issues > and substantive proposals. But in the present context, that > constitutes a diversion from the real problem at hand. > > The preparations for the Brazil conference have pushed > representational issues to the fore. Specifically, we have an entity > called 1net that has been given the authority to appoint half of the > members of the steering committees for the conference, > I dont think such an authority was ever give to 1net.... Though there seems to have been a strong attempt to claim it - so strong that many people thought they already had it . parminder > and which has also promised that a fixed number of slots on these > steering committees will be given to specific stakeholder groups. > > Because these steering committees will control the agenda of the > conference, and hence will be in de facto control of our discussion of > substantive issues at the Sao Paulo conference, it behooves even those > of us exclusively interested in substan > > tive issues to pay attention to the composition of those committees. > > In particular, the coordinating committee of 1net itself needs to be > settled. Get that done, and yes, we can start to focus on substantive > issues. > > --MM > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *George > Sadowsky > *Sent:* Monday, November 25, 2013 12:38 PM > *To:* Deirdre Williams > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein michael; Peter Ian; > bestbits; Akplogan Adiel A.; Swinehart Theresa; > internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org; i-coordination at nro.net; Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a > multi-stakeholder environment > > Deirdre, and all, > > Thank you, Deirdre. I take your point that we should consider > shifting the focus to issue-based discussions and away from > stakeholder membership-based discussions. That is a very good way to > phrase it. (Note that accepting such a shift does not imply that it > should replace all other stakeholder membership activities.) > > Where should we have these issue-based discussions? There have been a > number of good and provocative responses to what I wrote below, and I > really don't know where to post them and my reactions to them. How > can we get these conversations started in a productive and inclusive > manner? > > We now have four relevant lists that I know of, and here may well be more: > > - the IGC list, > > - the BestBits list, > > - the ISOC policy list, and > > - the new 1Net coordination list. > > Many of us subscribe to some or all of these list, and therefore see > the same posting more than once. I subscribe to all four of the above. > > With some trepidation, I'm going to post this message on all of the > above lists, with the hope that we can converge on an acceptable > solution. [I have trimmed some early postings below that led to this > point in the discussion.] I myself would favor the 1net list, simply > because it is new and meant to be all-inclusive specifically for this > purpose, whereas other lists may be (I think) somewhat restrictive and > more focused and used for other purposes also. > > If you respond to this, please consider trimming the response > significantly, since the content below will have been posted to all of > the four lists. > > IMO the question to be answered is: on which list, or using which > vehicle, can we collect broad involvement in issue-based threads that > have to do with aspects of Internet governance? If we can converge on > an answer, then we'll eliminate some redundancy and we'll have a more > inclusive and more positive discussion of issues. If the redundancy > is felt to be useful, then we can keep it; it's agreement on the focal > point that's important here. > > Comments? Suggestions? Criticisms? > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > On Nov 25, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > > > I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by > Michael Gurstein > > > Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE > REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society > > I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread > > > Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder > environment > > begun by George Sadowsky. > > Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues? > > In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point > was made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at > a recent workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his > children also query the speed of the Internet at home when they have > to do their homework. The only people excluded from civil society are > incarcerated prisoners, and that also is a statement that can be > questioned. If I understand him correctly George Sadowsky is making > the same point. Civil society is us - all of us. > > Instead of trying to disentangle the stakeholders from one another > could we try to reach agreement on the aspects of the issues? If no > one is wearing any particular hat then it should be possible to obtain > a clearer picture of the issues that need to be discussed, and the > multiple aspects of those issues. > > Surely at least a part of the "multistakeholder" configuration of WSIS > was to provide a means of identifying and harnessing the different > types of expertise available, to tackle the different aspects of the > challenges created by the Internet and its proliferation. In hindsight > the intention must have been partially collaboration and cooperation. > Sadly the focus shifted to a third "c" - competition - so that instead > of team-powered problem solving we ended up with separation and power > struggles. And now on top of that comes betrayal and the death of > trust. And the "little people" the "grassroots" become even further > excluded from discussion of the interests that affect them, washed out > in a wave of personalities and accusations. > > We do not need to let this breakdown continue. We CAN work together, > we've done it before. Trust can be rebuilt. It is a hard slow process, > but each of us retains threads of trust which we consider still to be > viable. Otherwise we would not be communicating at all. Weave these > threads together and we can build something stronger than what existed > before, because we will be depending on one another instead of on > abstract external factors. And together we will be able to > disaggregate the issues into their component aspects and negotiate a > point of balance among the differing needs of government, technicians, > business and society. > > Deirdre > > On 24 November 2013 12:59, George Sadowsky > wrote: > > All, > > _Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal > opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I > am affiliated._ > > <> > > > > So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to > see if any of them resonate with any of you. > > _First_, I believe that the introduction of the idea of > multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect > between the Internet technical community and the community that > has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns. As I > recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably > intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only > to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to > exploit it for social and economic benefits. > > The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from > the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize. > Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone, > visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments > on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined. > Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others' > opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered. > > _Second_, I believe that the specific role of the Internet > technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of > participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly > understood. At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a > very complex system at most levels. In order to understand fully > the implications of policies that have to do with Internet > administration, operation and governance, one has have a good > technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be > at a detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the > Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to > study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating > about them. That function may well extend toward consideration of > broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be > discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long > term, or both. > > In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, > but it is extremely important. > > _Third_, I believe that one result of formalized > multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of > people rather than separating groups of ideas. A couple of > examples illustrate the point. To the extent that the Internet > technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to > enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved > representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage > their participation. Conversely, representatives of the Internet > technical community are people, and many are very likely to have > beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by > those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder > approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or > even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding > issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of > recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a > focus on inter-stakeholder group separation. > > _Fourth_, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term > "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is > now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if > individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that > agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual > rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society > goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate > that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are > generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon > pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably > government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of > the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as > it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being > siloed. > > An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all > people in the world and remove government involvement, the private > sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional > influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the > rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions > of most of us as individuals. > > Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or > stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may > work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other > public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly > users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate > of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the > people who are now labeled as being in the civil society > stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of > our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as > we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG > is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger > space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society > positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the > various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite > intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships > between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the > underlying reality, > > _I conclude_ that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted > to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant > negative externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to > assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is > retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and > understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and > can exploit the positive aspects of that approach. > > This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has > helped me to understand some of the roots of the often > unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of > issues important to civil society and technical community experts > guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank you for taking the > time to read it. I realize that what I have written, and any > discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have > presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of > some ideas that I think may be useful. The more nuanced > discussion can and will come later. > > Your comments are welcome. > > George > > <> > > > > _______________________________________________ > I-coordination mailing list > I-coordination at nro.net > https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 03:08:42 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:08:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Request for input on civil society representatives for the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" In-Reply-To: <95BEA45B-89C1-4850-8EC8-08ED48DE7FD3@ipjustice.org> References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> <20131126185935.4b4b265e@quill> <4C31E068-5B06-4652-9B4F-1285422181AF@uzh.ch> <95BEA45B-89C1-4850-8EC8-08ED48DE7FD3@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <8AF9627A-FE83-4A68-BFDB-81AACD258430@uzh.ch> Great, thanks Robin. I suppose the steering comm would also need to inquire about the possibility of travel support to London and Palm Springs…. Best Bill On Nov 26, 2013, at 10:47 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Yes, I have let Fadi know that several global civil society networks are working together to send him 2 names by this week's end to represent us on the High Level Panel next month. > > Thanks, > Robin > > On Nov 26, 2013, at 1:10 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> When Fadi was told last weekend in BA that there had been expressions of discontent on various IG lists about the lack of CS representation, he said ok, send me a name from the community. I didn’t understand this as an ironclad commitment that they’d automatically appoint any name we provided, but rather as an invitation to suggest someone we think would be good (on a panel of CEOs and politicians). Now it’s been decided to demand that two people be empaneled, and a widening search for names is underway. Has anyone been in touch with Fadi or President Ilves to let them know what we’re doing and get their reaction? As the first meeting of the HLP is in two weeks, one imagines the planning is well underway, so it would be good for them to know what to expect, when…. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> Here's a quick update... >>> >>> So far, in addition the following have been suggested, some in public >>> postings, some privately: >>> >>> Anju Mangal, Grace Githaiga, Judy Okite, Nnenna Nwakanma, Michael >>> Gurstein, Thomas Lowenhaupt. >>> >>> I have written to each of them to enquire about their willingness to >>> serve on this "Panel". So far, Grace Githaiga, Michael Gurstein, >>> and Thomas Lowenhaupt have replied positively. >>> >>> Please note that the deadline for any additional suggestions is rather >>> soon. >>> >>> In regard to the question that has been raised about process: This is >>> right now an ad hoc process aimed at making --in a way that is >>> coordinated across civil society networks as well as we can in a very >>> tight timeframe-- a demand for increased civil society representation >>> on the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation"; this is >>> not directly related to 1net nor to any of the various committees that >>> will need to be formed in view of the Global Meeting in Brazil. I >>> certainly hope that it will be possible to set up a proper NomCom >>> process for those selection tasks, and that we'll find a way to do that >>> in a way that is again coordinated across civil society networks. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Am Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:56:57 +0100 >>> schrieb Norbert Bollow : >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> there is now an informal coordination group of some kind (tentatively >>>> called "steering committee", although I expect that that name will >>>> probably be changed) consisting of Anriette Esterhuysen for APC, >>>> Jeremy Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for NCSG, Virginia Paque for >>>> DIPLO, myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as facilitator. >>>> >>>> The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society representation >>>> on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation" organized >>>> by ICANN [1]. >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html >>>> >>>> The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional >>>> civil society people for this panel. >>>> >>>> The following names have been suggested so far: >>>> >>>> Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, >>>> Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. >>>> >>>> In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you wish >>>> to be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow Tuesday >>>> which is about 24 hours from now.) >>>> >>>> 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Nov 27 04:20:53 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:20:53 +1100 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report Message-ID: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS Nnenna Nwakanma Bertrand de la Chappelle Stuart Hamilton Sonigitu Ekpe Matthew Shears Mawaki Chango The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in support of their nominations by filling in the form at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION Anriette Esterhuysen William Drake Izumi Aizu Fatima Cambronero NOMCOM MEMBERS The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were Deirdre Williams Kerry Brown Shaila Mistry David Cake Jefsey Morfin Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. PROCESS Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to encourage more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) Nnenna Nwakanma * Bertrand de la Chappelle* Stuart Hamilton* Sonigitu Ekpe* Matthew Shears* Mawaki Chango* Mishi Choudhary Asif Kabani Rudi Vansnick Imran Ahmed Shah Fouad Bajwa The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before our emails) Anriette Esterhuysen * William Drake * Izumi Aizu * Fatima Cambronero * Lillian Nalwoga In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our recommendations. PROCESS The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The Nomcom then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 against each criteria. No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for candidates against other criteria were compiled) Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They did serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the IGC (8) 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote participation (6.5) 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives held by civil society.(8.5) 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute constructively to MAG deliberations (9) 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including the IGC on issues and progress (8) 8. Gender and geographic balance All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come to a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment that the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been very welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had the co –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the Nomcom was being formed. I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your behalf. Ian Peter Non voting chair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 04:40:43 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:10:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> Message-ID: <6A751922-40E5-4380-818A-2A929DB12B8E@hserus.net> Fine choices all. My compliments to the Nomcom, and to Ian. And congratulations to the nominees. --srs (iPad) > On 27-Nov-2013, at 14:50, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > > I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). > > > > > > RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma > Bertrand de la Chappelle > Stuart Hamilton > Sonigitu Ekpe > Matthew Shears > Mawaki Chango > > The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in support of their nominations by filling in the form at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat > > > > CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION > > Anriette Esterhuysen > William Drake > Izumi Aizu > Fatima Cambronero > > > > > NOMCOM MEMBERS > > > > The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were > > Deirdre Williams > > Kerry Brown > > Shaila Mistry > > David Cake > > Jefsey Morfin > > > > Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. > > > > PROCESS > > Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to encourage more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. > > The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) > > Nnenna Nwakanma * > Bertrand de la Chappelle* > Stuart Hamilton* > Sonigitu Ekpe* > Matthew Shears* > Mawaki Chango* > Mishi Choudhary > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > > > > The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before our emails) > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen * > William Drake * > Izumi Aizu * > Fatima Cambronero * > Lillian Nalwoga > > > > In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our recommendations. > > > > PROCESS > > > > The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The Nomcom then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 against each criteria. > > No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for candidates against other criteria were compiled) > > Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They did serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. > > 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) > 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the IGC (8) > 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote participation (6.5) > 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) > 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives > held by civil society.(8.5) > 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute constructively to MAG deliberations (9) > 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including the IGC on issues and progress (8) > > 8. Gender and geographic balance > > All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. > > Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come to a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment that the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been very welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had the co –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the Nomcom was being formed. > > I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your behalf. > > > > Ian Peter > > Non voting chair > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pbekono at gmail.com Wed Nov 27 05:13:53 2013 From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:13:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: <6A751922-40E5-4380-818A-2A929DB12B8E@hserus.net> References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> <6A751922-40E5-4380-818A-2A929DB12B8E@hserus.net> Message-ID: Good job Ian & Nomcom members Congratulations to nominees, it's a relevant panel ! regards, pascal 2013/11/27, Suresh Ramasubramanian : > Fine choices all. My compliments to the Nomcom, and to Ian. > And congratulations to the nominees. > > --srs (iPad) > >> On 27-Nov-2013, at 14:50, "Ian Peter" wrote: >> >> >> I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by >> Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder >> Advisory Group (MAG). >> >> >> >> >> >> RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS >> >> >> >> Nnenna Nwakanma >> Bertrand de la Chappelle >> Stuart Hamilton >> Sonigitu Ekpe >> Matthew Shears >> Mawaki Chango >> >> The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in >> support of their nominations by filling in the form at >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies >> should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight >> timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat >> >> >> >> CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> William Drake >> Izumi Aizu >> Fatima Cambronero >> >> >> >> >> NOMCOM MEMBERS >> >> >> >> The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection >> process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were >> >> Deirdre Williams >> >> Kerry Brown >> >> Shaila Mistry >> >> David Cake >> >> Jefsey Morfin >> >> >> >> Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. >> >> >> >> PROCESS >> >> Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for >> nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to >> encourage more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to >> receive nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. >> >> The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one >> nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) >> >> Nnenna Nwakanma * >> Bertrand de la Chappelle* >> Stuart Hamilton* >> Sonigitu Ekpe* >> Matthew Shears* >> Mawaki Chango* >> Mishi Choudhary >> Asif Kabani >> Rudi Vansnick >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> >> >> The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, >> asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for >> endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before >> our emails) >> >> >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen * >> William Drake * >> Izumi Aizu * >> Fatima Cambronero * >> Lillian Nalwoga >> >> >> >> In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our >> recommendations. >> >> >> >> PROCESS >> >> >> >> The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and >> advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The >> Nomcom then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting >> between 1 and 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after >> the criteria below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 >> and 10 against each criteria. >> >> No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria >> was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for >> candidates against other criteria were compiled) >> >> Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection >> only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They >> did serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some >> who were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close >> and whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, >> particularly with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender >> balance. >> >> 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) >> 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the >> IGC (8) >> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote >> participation (6.5) >> 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) >> 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives >> >> held by civil society.(8.5) >> 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute >> constructively to MAG deliberations (9) >> 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including >> the IGC on issues and progress (8) >> >> 8. Gender and geographic balance >> >> All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the >> candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an >> exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. >> >> Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate >> reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come >> to a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment >> that the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made >> achieving balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates >> and more candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have >> been very welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited >> timeframe under which we operated – however, it would have been even more >> limited had the co –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for >> candidates while the Nomcom was being formed. >> >> I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated >> work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess >> candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your >> behalf. >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> Non voting chair >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Nov 27 05:41:46 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:41:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> Message-ID: <20131127114146.651ce439@quill> [With IGC coordinator hat on, for a last time] Many thanks to Ian and the voting NomCom members for this careful and highly credible work! Greetings, Norbert Am Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:20:53 +1100 schrieb "Ian Peter" : > I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed > by Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF > Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). > > > > > > RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma > > Bertrand de la Chappelle > > Stuart Hamilton > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Matthew Shears > > Mawaki Chango > > > > The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in > support of their nominations by filling in the form at > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. > Copies should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the > tight timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF > Secretariat > > > > > > > > CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen > William Drake > Izumi Aizu > Fatima Cambronero > > > > > > NOMCOM MEMBERS > > > > The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection > process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were > > Deirdre Williams > > Kerry Brown > > Shaila Mistry > > David Cake > > Jefsey Morfin > > > > Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. > > > > PROCESS > > Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for > nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to > encourage more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to > receive nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. > > The following nominations were received within the advertised period > (one nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the > Nomcom) > > Nnenna Nwakanma * > > Bertrand de la Chappelle* > > Stuart Hamilton* > > Sonigitu Ekpe* > > Matthew Shears* > > Mawaki Chango* > > Mishi Choudhary > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > > > > The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the > MAG, asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for > endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some > before our emails) > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen * > William Drake * > Izumi Aizu * > Fatima Cambronero * > Lillian Nalwoga > > > > In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our > recommendations. > > > > PROCESS > > > > The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, > and advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. > The Nomcom then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a > weighting between 1 and 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in > brackets after the criteria below. Candidates were then scored with > a score between 1 and 10 against each criteria. > > No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this > criteria was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted > average scores for candidates against other criteria were compiled) > > Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to > selection only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time > frames. They did serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly > favoured, some who were not, but did leave a group in the middle > whose scores were close and whose credentials for inclusion were then > compared further, particularly with intentions to achieve better > geographic and gender balance. > > 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) > 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks > including the IGC (8) 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, > including remote participation (6.5) 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) > 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and > perspectives held by civil society.(8.5) > 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to > contribute constructively to MAG deliberations (9) 7. Willing and > able to report and update civil society networks including the IGC on > issues and progress (8) > > 8. Gender and geographic balance > > All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the > candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, > an exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. > > Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final > slate reflecting as best possible some natural differences of > emphasis to come to a mutual recommendation. Several members > expressed some disappointment that the range and communicated > attributes of those nominated made achieving balance very difficult. > In particular, more women as candidates and more candidates from > regions we were not able to represent would have been very welcome. > This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under > which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had > the co –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates > while the Nomcom was being formed. > > I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their > dedicated work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and > assess candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good > work on your behalf. > > > > Ian Peter > > Non voting chair > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 05:43:07 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:43:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Resignation (was Re: URGENT: Request for input...) In-Reply-To: References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> <20131126185935.4b4b265e@quill> <4C31E068-5B06-4652-9B4F-1285422181AF@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <20131127114307.7d9b8b0a@quill> Dear all Hereby I announce my resignation from the role of IGC co-coordinator, in protest of 1) The overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members. 2) The specific lack of constructive engagement in relation to recent attempts at using the IGC statement drafting process (for example, in the most recent attempt, the only reaction was an attempt to undermine the stated purpose of the Brazil meeting, and when I tried to have a constructive conversation about that point, the response was in fact a personal attack). From this criticism of "lack of supportive attitude" I'd like to explicitly exclude the "silent majority" (there's nothing wrong with simply lurking) as well as everyone else to whom this criticism does not apply, most but not all of them civil society people. Actually a lot of people were seeking to be supportive (I'm sure that you know who you are! And I hereby thank you!) but faced the same reality as I am the there are obvious limits on how much can be done in a generally hostile environment where the hostile attitudes are so deeply ingrained that the attempt to enforce the posting rules triggers so much obnoxiousness that the overall level of hostility increases rather than decreases. In fact the number of people who were seeking to be supportive may well exceed the number of people who together created what I've called "the overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members". The overall attitude communicated by a group is not determined by how the majority feel, but by what is most of the time being said and done, or not. As a point of accountability, I'm perfectly willing to answer any questions that people may want to ask about my actions during the time that I served as co-coordinator, as well as about the underlying reasons, to the extent that such questions can be answered without violating reasonable expectations of confidentiality (e.g. I'm still not going to answer questions about he "private warnings" process). Greetings, Norbert Mawaki Chango wrote: > Strange and confusing, indeed. > The last line of the PR Newswire pieces on this panel (as per the URL > forwarded initially) reads: "Additional members to be confirmed." And > all what we hear next is "hurry up and give your blessing to the list > of names that a handful number of us have _informally_ agreed on." > One would have hoped that IGC co-cos would provide some feedback of > the kind Bill just provided as well as the clarification he asked > for. On the other hand, I can't even count how many times now I have > read something like "we will set up a proper NomCom process" blah > blah. It's not as if we've been busy doing some productive > substantive work in IGC. Informal and ad hoc, that's how we roll > these days across CS. > > For the two names that have been asked for, I'd suggest: > 1) Milton Mueller > 2) Your choice > > Mawaki > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:10 PM, William Drake > wrote: > > > Hi > > > > When Fadi was told last weekend in BA that there had been > > expressions of discontent on various IG lists about the lack of CS > > representation, he said ok, send me a name from the community. I > > didn’t understand this as an ironclad commitment that they’d > > automatically appoint any name we provided, but rather as an > > invitation to suggest someone we think would be good (on a panel of > > CEOs and politicians). Now it’s been decided to demand that two > > people be empaneled, and a widening search for names is underway. > > Has anyone been in touch with Fadi or President Ilves to let them > > know what we’re doing and get their reaction? As the first meeting > > of the HLP is in two weeks, one imagines the planning is well > > underway, so it would be good for them to know what to expect, > > when…. > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > > > On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > Dear all > > > > Here's a quick update... > > > > So far, in addition the following have been suggested, some in > > public postings, some privately: > > > > Anju Mangal, Grace Githaiga, Judy Okite, Nnenna Nwakanma, Michael > > Gurstein, Thomas Lowenhaupt. > > > > I have written to each of them to enquire about their willingness to > > serve on this "Panel". So far, Grace Githaiga, Michael Gurstein, > > and Thomas Lowenhaupt have replied positively. > > > > Please note that the deadline for any additional suggestions is > > rather soon. > > > > In regard to the question that has been raised about process: This > > is right now an ad hoc process aimed at making --in a way that is > > coordinated across civil society networks as well as we can in a > > very tight timeframe-- a demand for increased civil society > > representation on the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet > > Cooperation"; this is not directly related to 1net nor to any of > > the various committees that will need to be formed in view of the > > Global Meeting in Brazil. I certainly hope that it will be possible > > to set up a proper NomCom process for those selection tasks, and > > that we'll find a way to do that in a way that is again coordinated > > across civil society networks. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Am Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:56:57 +0100 > > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > > > > Dear all, > > > > there is now an informal coordination group of some kind > > (tentatively called "steering committee", although I expect that > > that name will probably be changed) consisting of Anriette > > Esterhuysen for APC, Jeremy Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for > > NCSG, Virginia Paque for DIPLO, myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as > > facilitator. > > > > The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society > > representation on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet > > Cooperation" organized by ICANN [1]. > > > > [1] > > > > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html > > > > The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional > > civil society people for this panel. > > > > The following names have been suggested so far: > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, > > Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. > > > > In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you > > wish to be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow > > Tuesday which is about 24 hours from now.) > > > > 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 > > > > > > ********************************************************** > > 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 (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > > 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 kichango at gmail.com Wed Nov 27 06:15:30 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:15:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] Resignation (was Re: URGENT: Request for input...) In-Reply-To: <20131127114307.7d9b8b0a@quill> References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> <20131126185935.4b4b265e@quill> <4C31E068-5B06-4652-9B4F-1285422181AF@uzh.ch> <20131127114307.7d9b8b0a@quill> Message-ID: Norbert, I regret to see you leave in these conditions, especially knowing that you have weathered harsher times than what I can see is happening now (at least that's my perception from the public postings.) I also regret unnecessary divisive words against you as well as from you, though my own feeling was that the latter were borne out of your eagerness for transparency and social justice which I share. I hope the fact that your resignation message comes after my posting, which contains some critiquing about the latest process you have joined in after being critical yourself of that kind of approach, is no indication that my message was the one drop too much. I have always tried here to say what I think while being respectful of the persons involved, but none of us is perfect. Whatever the case, thank you so much for your hard work, your service to this community and your dedication to its ideals (even if we have come to learn they are not shared by all of us here.) I wish you all best in the next episode of your engagements and endeavors. Good luck, Mawaki On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Dear all > > Hereby I announce my resignation from the role of IGC co-coordinator, > in protest of > > 1) The overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members. > > 2) The specific lack of constructive engagement in relation to recent > attempts at using the IGC statement drafting process (for example, > in the most recent attempt, the only reaction was an attempt to > undermine the stated purpose of the Brazil meeting, and when I tried > to have a constructive conversation about that point, the response > was in fact a personal attack). > > From this criticism of "lack of supportive attitude" I'd like to > explicitly exclude the "silent majority" (there's nothing wrong with > simply lurking) as well as everyone else to whom this criticism does > not apply, most but not all of them civil society people. Actually a > lot of people were seeking to be supportive (I'm sure that you know > who you are! And I hereby thank you!) but faced the same reality as I am > the there are obvious limits on how much can be done in a generally > hostile environment where the hostile attitudes are so deeply ingrained > that the attempt to enforce the posting rules triggers so much > obnoxiousness that the overall level of hostility increases rather than > decreases. > > In fact the number of people who were seeking to be supportive may well > exceed the number of people who together created what I've called "the > overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members". The overall > attitude communicated by a group is not determined by how the majority > feel, but by what is most of the time being said and done, or not. > > As a point of accountability, I'm perfectly willing to answer any > questions that people may want to ask about my actions during the time > that I served as co-coordinator, as well as about the underlying > reasons, to the extent that such questions can be answered without > violating reasonable expectations of confidentiality (e.g. I'm still > not going to answer questions about he "private warnings" process). > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Strange and confusing, indeed. > > The last line of the PR Newswire pieces on this panel (as per the URL > > forwarded initially) reads: "Additional members to be confirmed." And > > all what we hear next is "hurry up and give your blessing to the list > > of names that a handful number of us have _informally_ agreed on." > > One would have hoped that IGC co-cos would provide some feedback of > > the kind Bill just provided as well as the clarification he asked > > for. On the other hand, I can't even count how many times now I have > > read something like "we will set up a proper NomCom process" blah > > blah. It's not as if we've been busy doing some productive > > substantive work in IGC. Informal and ad hoc, that's how we roll > > these days across CS. > > > > For the two names that have been asked for, I'd suggest: > > 1) Milton Mueller > > 2) Your choice > > > > Mawaki > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:10 PM, William Drake > > wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > When Fadi was told last weekend in BA that there had been > > > expressions of discontent on various IG lists about the lack of CS > > > representation, he said ok, send me a name from the community. I > > > didn’t understand this as an ironclad commitment that they’d > > > automatically appoint any name we provided, but rather as an > > > invitation to suggest someone we think would be good (on a panel of > > > CEOs and politicians). Now it’s been decided to demand that two > > > people be empaneled, and a widening search for names is underway. > > > Has anyone been in touch with Fadi or President Ilves to let them > > > know what we’re doing and get their reaction? As the first meeting > > > of the HLP is in two weeks, one imagines the planning is well > > > underway, so it would be good for them to know what to expect, > > > when…. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > > Dear all > > > > > > Here's a quick update... > > > > > > So far, in addition the following have been suggested, some in > > > public postings, some privately: > > > > > > Anju Mangal, Grace Githaiga, Judy Okite, Nnenna Nwakanma, Michael > > > Gurstein, Thomas Lowenhaupt. > > > > > > I have written to each of them to enquire about their willingness to > > > serve on this "Panel". So far, Grace Githaiga, Michael Gurstein, > > > and Thomas Lowenhaupt have replied positively. > > > > > > Please note that the deadline for any additional suggestions is > > > rather soon. > > > > > > In regard to the question that has been raised about process: This > > > is right now an ad hoc process aimed at making --in a way that is > > > coordinated across civil society networks as well as we can in a > > > very tight timeframe-- a demand for increased civil society > > > representation on the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet > > > Cooperation"; this is not directly related to 1net nor to any of > > > the various committees that will need to be formed in view of the > > > Global Meeting in Brazil. I certainly hope that it will be possible > > > to set up a proper NomCom process for those selection tasks, and > > > that we'll find a way to do that in a way that is again coordinated > > > across civil society networks. > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > Am Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:56:57 +0100 > > > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > there is now an informal coordination group of some kind > > > (tentatively called "steering committee", although I expect that > > > that name will probably be changed) consisting of Anriette > > > Esterhuysen for APC, Jeremy Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for > > > NCSG, Virginia Paque for DIPLO, myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as > > > facilitator. > > > > > > The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society > > > representation on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet > > > Cooperation" organized by ICANN [1]. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html > > > > > > The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional > > > civil society people for this panel. > > > > > > The following names have been suggested so far: > > > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, > > > Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. > > > > > > In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you > > > wish to be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow > > > Tuesday which is about 24 hours from now.) > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > ********************************************************** > > > 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 (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 06:15:40 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:15:40 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil meeting -- press release In-Reply-To: <529524AD.801@apc.org> References: <2B591614-6A75-45F5-BD18-B70436F862B4@ipjustice.org> <529511AF.3020804@cafonso.ca> <529524AD.801@apc.org> Message-ID: <5295D45C.1080801@cafonso.ca> Yes. We must ensure that all CS movements, groups and structures have direct access to the organizing commission, no need to use a single conduit. And please forgive us for the elementary translation error in the press release. Of course we meant "governance principles", not "government principles". The original in Portuguese is correct. The best way to reach the commission by email is to write to info at cgi.br for now (if you wish, please cc. or cco. to me). We should have a more specific email soon. fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/26/2013 08:46 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Thank you very much for this c.a. > > Does this mean that we no longer need to address our concerns about > civil society participation to 1net but that rather we can engage > constructively with CGI.br? > > Anriette > > > On 26/11/2013 23:25, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Dear people, below is the translation of the CGI.br press release >> regarding the Brazil Meeting. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> =============== >> November 26th 2013 >> >> Announcement of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee about the >> Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance >> >> President Dilma Rousseff’s speech at the United Nations and the >> Montevideo Statement [1] prompted the opportunity to discuss proposals >> on a new Internet governance, which became possible by the Brazilian >> initiative to host the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet >> Governance. The meeting is scheduled for 23 and 24 April 2014, in São >> Paulo, and will be organized in a partnership between CGI.br and >> international entities representing the different sectors involved with >> Internet governance. >> >> The meeting represents an opportunity for government leaders and >> representatives from different global sectors to discuss proposals about >> Internet governance and development. The purpose of that meeting is to >> pursue consensus about universally accepted government principles and to >> improve their institutional framework. >> >> The event shall have the participation of governments, civil society, >> academy, international organisms and entities, as well as technical and >> business communities. >> >> “We would like to thank the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee for >> its role organizing that meeting. I genuinely believe that the global >> Internet community will gather in this truly multistakeholder >> opportunity with the goal of shaping the future towards the continued >> prosperity and growth of the Internet”, said Adiel A. Akplogan, CEO at >> AfriNIC and coordinator of 1Net. >> >> President Roussef nominated Prof. Virgílio Fernandes Almeida, >> Coordinator of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and Secretary >> for Informatics Policies, to coordinate the organization for that meeting. >> >> “The Internet Steering Committee acknowledges the opportunity to discuss >> new paths for the global Internet governance and appreciates the >> importance of a multistakeholder meeting for those discussions”, said >> Professor Virgílio Almeida. >> >> Four committees shall be created in order to warrant the event’s >> success. The committees will have the support of a shared secretary, >> which shall help them to conduct their work and to coordinate the >> communications. >> >> The four meeting committees are: >> >> 1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the >> political articulation and fostering the involvement of the >> international community. >> >> 2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for organizing the >> event, including the agenda discussion and execution, and for the >> treatment of the proposals from participants and different stakeholders; >> >> 3. Logistics and Organizational Committee: Responsible for overseeing >> every logistic aspect of the meeting; >> >> 4. Governmental Advisory Committee: Will stay open to all governments >> which want to contribute to the meeting. >> >> The meeting will allow face-to-face and remote participation of the >> global community. Mechanisms and the schedule for receiving inputs of >> the global community will be established. >> >> E-Mail for contact and input => info at cgi.br >> >> =========== >> >> [1] http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/a-07oct13-en.htm >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Wed Nov 27 06:29:36 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:29:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT In-Reply-To: <1385474149.36657.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1384066968.48757.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385452712.44293.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1385474149.36657.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1385551776.1505.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Ms Salanieta, (the IGC CS Coordinator) and Dear Mr Ian Peter (IGC Nomcom Chair). With reference to objection about seeking support from different communities, this is to confirm you that I have WITHDRAW from Best Bits & Diplo Community consideration.  I already have updated about Best Bits, while about the Diplo Internet Governance Blog, I have modified the profile submitted on Diplo blog according to your advise. However, Diplo Survey Poll has been generated and technically it is not possible for me to remove my name.  I have added Ms Virginia Paque, if she can help me in removing my name from the "Diplo Community Survey Poll for 2014 IGF MAG". I hope that this will help in rectification of unnecessary objection about honesty & sincerity of a candidate. Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ > From: Imran Ahmed Shah >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >Cc: Ian Peter >Sent: Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 18:55 >Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT > > > >Dear Salanieta, the IGC CS Coordinator. >Thanks for your intimation about the conflict appeared at IGC CS, and observed by the NomCom Chair. >I would also like add (to the observation) that I also have submit my name to Best Bits as well. > > >Please let me understand first about the complications and objections on my Open & Transparent candidacy. > > >I will give you my response promptly and very shortly. > > >Thanking you and Best Regards > > >Imran Ahmed Shah > >>________________________________ >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Imran Ahmed Shah >>Cc: Ian Peter >>Sent: Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 18:05 >>Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT >> >> >> >>Dear Imran, >> >>There is no written rule saying that you cannot apply both via the IGC NomCom or through Diplo or directly to the IGF Secretariat but it allows for the systems to be gamed and gives you an unusual advantage. It would mean that you do not trust any one mechanism and would like to increase the probability of being selected. This is precisely why I have been asking other civil society organisations to consider having one joint process to select representatives to things like the MAG etc. >> >> >>Given that the NomCom Chair would have received your notice, he would have to consider this and perhaps give you the option of selecting one forum for selection. This could possibly mean that if you select the IGC that you would withdraw your nomination from Diplo or the reverse. This will allow for people not to question the process and NomCom selection. >> >> >>Hope you are well though and in excellent health. >> >> >> >> >>On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >>Dear All Fellows at IGC CS. >>> >>> >>>With reference to my self nomination at Diplo Internet Governance Blog, I would require your support for the endorsement to my slef-nomination for IGC CS as well as on Diplo Internet Governance Blog. >>> >>> >>>I also have updated my profile on Diplo Internet Governance Online Blog.  >>>url http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/nomination-for-igf-mag-2014. >>> >>> >>> >>>Please read the Diplo post about the 2014 MAG endorsement process. >>> >>>As per Diplo community recommendations (endorsements) will be calculated using the following criteria: >>> >>>40% - results of poll   Click here to take the survey. >>>20% - experience in IG global policy processes, including efforts such as APC, IGC, Diplo discussions, regional work and other work. Please describe these activities in your post  >>>10% - representation from least developed countries  >>>10% - representation from small island states  >>>10% - representation from countries never before represented on the MAG >>>10% - gender (to support gender balance and more women on the MAG) >>> >>> >>>Initially candidate nominees for IGF MAG would require community support reflection through a Survey/Poll Click here to take the survey. >>>So, would you like to spare few minutes to submit your preference about candidates through this Survey Click here to take the survey. >>> >>> >>>Thanking you and Best Regards >>> >>> >>>Imran Ahmed Shah >>>Member Internet Governance Caucus and Best Bits >>>Founding President IGF Pakistan >>>NCUC Member (since 2009) >>>ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) >>> >>> >>> >>>>________________________________ >>>> From: Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Jeremy Hunsinger ; Sonigitu Ekpe >>>>Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 12:02 >>>> >>>>Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Dear All, >>>> >>>> >>>>With reference to the following Call for the Nominations (for IGF MAG), and subsequent messages from Mr Izumi Aizu & Ms Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, I would nominate myself for the IGF MAG. >>>> >>>> >>>>I recently has organized a workshop at AP regional IGF 2013 at Seoul with the title of Governance for the Internet of Kids, Teenagers and Youngsters. Workshop detail & my profile may be find at APrIGF Website (http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-32/ , http://2013.rigf.asia/day3/ and http://2013.rigf.asia/speakers-profiles/#Imran). >>>> >>>> >>>>Further information as mentioned for EOI, I will arrange to submit to the Coordinators and MAG Nomcom. >>>> >>>> >>>>Thanking you and Best Regards >>>> >>>> >>>>Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>Member Internet Governance Caucus >>>>Founding President IGF Pakistan >>>>NCUC Member (since 2009) >>>>ICANN Fellowship (ICANN 36th Seoul Meeting - 2009) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>________________________________ >>>>> From: Sonigitu Ekpe >>>>>To: Jeremy Hunsinger ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2013, 11:59 >>>>>Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: MAG NomCom and MAG nominees (Call for names) URGENT >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I volunteer to serve on the MAG. >>>>>Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >>>>>"Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >>>>>+234 8027510179 >>>>>On Nov 10, 2013 5:37 AM, "Jeremy Hunsinger" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>I can do nomcom >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Adame Peake >>>>>>> 2. Ian Peter >>>>>>> 3. Kossi Amessinou >>>>>>>[We need 22 more to volunteer for the NomCom] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection  can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Asif Kabani >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Rudi Vansnick >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Dear All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Further to the call for volunteers for NomCom to select the MAG, here is an update: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG NomCom [25 Volunteers needed] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Adame Peake >>>>>>>> 2. Ian Peter >>>>>>>> 3. Kossi Amessinou >>>>>>>>Volunteers for MAG [as many as possible so the selection  can be diverse and wide] Feel free to nominate people. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Asif Kabani >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Rudi Vansnick >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Wed Nov 27 06:34:41 2013 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 06:34:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> Message-ID: <5295D8D1.7000001@communisphere.com> Deirdre Williams, Kerry Brown, Shaila Mistry, David Cake, Jefsey Morfin, and Ian Peter as non-voting Chair are to be congratulated on their fine work in selecting MAG candidates. Having chaired a MAG NomCom I know the challenge selecting from such a well qualified pool entails. Good work. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt On 11/27/2013 4:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by > Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF > Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). > > RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS > > Nnenna Nwakanma > > Bertrand de la Chappelle > > Stuart Hamilton > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Matthew Shears > > Mawaki Chango > > The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in > support of their nominations by filling in the form at > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. > Copies should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the > tight timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF > Secretariat > > CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION > > Anriette Esterhuysen > William Drake > Izumi Aizu > Fatima Cambronero > > NOMCOM MEMBERS > > The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection > process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were > > Deirdre Williams > > Kerry Brown > > Shaila Mistry > > David Cake > > Jefsey Morfin > > Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. > > PROCESS > > Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for > nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to > encourage more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to > receive nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. > > The following nominations were received within the advertised period > (one nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) > > Nnenna Nwakanma * > > Bertrand de la Chappelle* > > Stuart Hamilton* > > Sonigitu Ekpe* > > Matthew Shears* > > Mawaki Chango* > > Mishi Choudhary > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > > The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, > asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for > endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some > before our emails) > > Anriette Esterhuysen * > William Drake * > Izumi Aizu* > Fatima Cambronero * > Lillian Nalwoga > > In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our > recommendations. > > PROCESS > > The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, > and advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. > The Nomcom then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a > weighting between 1 and 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in > brackets after the criteria below. Candidates were then scored with a > score between 1 and 10 against each criteria. > > No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this > criteria was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted > average scores for candidates against other criteria were compiled) > > Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to > selection only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time > frames. They did serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly > favoured, some who were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose > scores were close and whose credentials for inclusion were then > compared further, particularly with intentions to achieve better > geographic and gender balance. > > 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) > 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including > the IGC (8) > 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote > participation (6.5) > 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) > 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and > perspectives > held by civil society.(8.5) > 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to > contribute constructively to MAG deliberations (9) > 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks > including the IGC on issues and progress (8) > > 8. Gender and geographic balance > > All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the > candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, > an exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. > > Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate > reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to > come to a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some > disappointment that the range and communicated attributes of those > nominated made achieving balance very difficult. In particular, more > women as candidates and more candidates from regions we were not able > to represent would have been very welcome. This may partially be a > factor of the very limited timeframe under which we operated – > however, it would have been even more limited had the co –coordinators > not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the Nomcom was > being formed. > > I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their > dedicated work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and > assess candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work > on your behalf. > > Ian Peter > > Non voting chair > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 06:37:37 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:37:37 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> Message-ID: <5295D981.4080708@cafonso.ca> Congratulations on this fine, fine work! I cannot think of a better representation. fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/27/2013 07:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by > Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF > Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). > > > > > > RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma > > Bertrand de la Chappelle > > Stuart Hamilton > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Matthew Shears > > Mawaki Chango > > > > The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in > support of their nominations by filling in the form at > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies > should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight > timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat > > > > > > > > CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen > William Drake > Izumi Aizu > Fatima Cambronero > > > > > > NOMCOM MEMBERS > > > > The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection > process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were > > Deirdre Williams > > Kerry Brown > > Shaila Mistry > > David Cake > > Jefsey Morfin > > > > Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. > > > > PROCESS > > Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for > nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to > encourage more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to > receive nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. > > The following nominations were received within the advertised period > (one nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) > > Nnenna Nwakanma * > > Bertrand de la Chappelle* > > Stuart Hamilton* > > Sonigitu Ekpe* > > Matthew Shears* > > Mawaki Chango* > > Mishi Choudhary > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > > > > The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, > asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for > endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before > our emails) > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen * > William Drake * > Izumi Aizu * > Fatima Cambronero * > Lillian Nalwoga > > > > In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our > recommendations. > > > > PROCESS > > > > The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and > advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The > Nomcom then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting > between 1 and 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after > the criteria below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 > and 10 against each criteria. > > No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria > was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores > for candidates against other criteria were compiled) > > Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection > only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They > did serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some > who were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were > close and whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, > particularly with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender > balance. > > 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) > 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including > the IGC (8) > 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote > participation (6.5) > 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) > 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives > held by civil society.(8.5) > 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute > constructively to MAG deliberations (9) > 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks > including the IGC on issues and progress (8) > > 8. Gender and geographic balance > > All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the > candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an > exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. > > Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate > reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come > to a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some > disappointment that the range and communicated attributes of those > nominated made achieving balance very difficult. In particular, more > women as candidates and more candidates from regions we were not able to > represent would have been very welcome. This may partially be a factor > of the very limited timeframe under which we operated – however, it > would have been even more limited had the co –coordinators not taken the > initiative to call for candidates while the Nomcom was being formed. > > I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated > work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess > candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your > behalf. > > > > Ian Peter > > Non voting chair > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Nov 27 06:45:55 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:45:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: <20131127114146.651ce439@quill> References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> <20131127114146.651ce439@quill> Message-ID: The Balance looks good, and a great representation from IGC. Actually all the MAG nominees were good candidates. Congrats ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya. twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh On 27 November 2013 10:41, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [With IGC coordinator hat on, for a last time] > > Many thanks to Ian and the voting NomCom members for this careful and > highly credible work! > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:20:53 +1100 > schrieb "Ian Peter" : > > > I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed > > by Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF > > Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). > > > > > > > > > > > > RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS > > > > > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma > > > > Bertrand de la Chappelle > > > > Stuart Hamilton > > > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > > > Matthew Shears > > > > Mawaki Chango > > > > > > > > The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in > > support of their nominations by filling in the form at > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. > > Copies should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the > > tight timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF > > Secretariat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION > > > > > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen > > William Drake > > Izumi Aizu > > Fatima Cambronero > > > > > > > > > > > > NOMCOM MEMBERS > > > > > > > > The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection > > process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were > > > > Deirdre Williams > > > > Kerry Brown > > > > Shaila Mistry > > > > David Cake > > > > Jefsey Morfin > > > > > > > > Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. > > > > > > > > PROCESS > > > > Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for > > nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to > > encourage more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to > > receive nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. > > > > The following nominations were received within the advertised period > > (one nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the > > Nomcom) > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma * > > > > Bertrand de la Chappelle* > > > > Stuart Hamilton* > > > > Sonigitu Ekpe* > > > > Matthew Shears* > > > > Mawaki Chango* > > > > Mishi Choudhary > > Asif Kabani > > Rudi Vansnick > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > Fouad Bajwa > > > > > > > > The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the > > MAG, asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for > > endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some > > before our emails) > > > > > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen * > > William Drake * > > Izumi Aizu * > > Fatima Cambronero * > > Lillian Nalwoga > > > > > > > > In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our > > recommendations. > > > > > > > > PROCESS > > > > > > > > The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, > > and advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. > > The Nomcom then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a > > weighting between 1 and 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in > > brackets after the criteria below. Candidates were then scored with > > a score between 1 and 10 against each criteria. > > > > No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this > > criteria was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted > > average scores for candidates against other criteria were compiled) > > > > Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to > > selection only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time > > frames. They did serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly > > favoured, some who were not, but did leave a group in the middle > > whose scores were close and whose credentials for inclusion were then > > compared further, particularly with intentions to achieve better > > geographic and gender balance. > > > > 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) > > 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks > > including the IGC (8) 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, > > including remote participation (6.5) 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) > > 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and > > perspectives held by civil society.(8.5) > > 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to > > contribute constructively to MAG deliberations (9) 7. Willing and > > able to report and update civil society networks including the IGC on > > issues and progress (8) > > > > 8. Gender and geographic balance > > > > All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the > > candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, > > an exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. > > > > Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final > > slate reflecting as best possible some natural differences of > > emphasis to come to a mutual recommendation. Several members > > expressed some disappointment that the range and communicated > > attributes of those nominated made achieving balance very difficult. > > In particular, more women as candidates and more candidates from > > regions we were not able to represent would have been very welcome. > > This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under > > which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had > > the co –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates > > while the Nomcom was being formed. > > > > I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their > > dedicated work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and > > assess candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good > > work on your behalf. > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > Non voting chair > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From m.ermert at gmx.de Wed Nov 27 06:47:12 2013 From: m.ermert at gmx.de (M.Ermert) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:47:12 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil meeting -- press release In-Reply-To: <5295D45C.1080801@cafonso.ca> References: <2B591614-6A75-45F5-BD18-B70436F862B4@ipjustice.org> <529511AF.3020804@cafonso.ca> <529524AD.801@apc.org> <5295D45C.1080801@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5295DBC0.3050307@gmx.de> Hi, i tried several channels to get more information on the release (and its publication), so perhaps somebody (Carlos?) is able to answer, where has the original release been published? I was unable to find it on either cgi.br or http://www.brasil.gov.br/?set_language=en Thanks, Monika Am 27.11.2013 12:15, schrieb Carlos A. Afonso: > Yes. We must ensure that all CS movements, groups and structures have > direct access to the organizing commission, no need to use a single conduit. > > And please forgive us for the elementary translation error in the press > release. Of course we meant "governance principles", not "government > principles". The original in Portuguese is correct. > > The best way to reach the commission by email is to write to info at cgi.br > for now (if you wish, please cc. or cco. to me). We should have a more > specific email soon. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 11/26/2013 08:46 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Thank you very much for this c.a. >> >> Does this mean that we no longer need to address our concerns about >> civil society participation to 1net but that rather we can engage >> constructively with CGI.br? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 26/11/2013 23:25, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> Dear people, below is the translation of the CGI.br press release >>> regarding the Brazil Meeting. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> =============== >>> November 26th 2013 >>> >>> Announcement of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee about the >>> Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance >>> >>> President Dilma Rousseff’s speech at the United Nations and the >>> Montevideo Statement [1] prompted the opportunity to discuss proposals >>> on a new Internet governance, which became possible by the Brazilian >>> initiative to host the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet >>> Governance. The meeting is scheduled for 23 and 24 April 2014, in São >>> Paulo, and will be organized in a partnership between CGI.br and >>> international entities representing the different sectors involved with >>> Internet governance. >>> >>> The meeting represents an opportunity for government leaders and >>> representatives from different global sectors to discuss proposals about >>> Internet governance and development. The purpose of that meeting is to >>> pursue consensus about universally accepted government principles and to >>> improve their institutional framework. >>> >>> The event shall have the participation of governments, civil society, >>> academy, international organisms and entities, as well as technical and >>> business communities. >>> >>> “We would like to thank the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee for >>> its role organizing that meeting. I genuinely believe that the global >>> Internet community will gather in this truly multistakeholder >>> opportunity with the goal of shaping the future towards the continued >>> prosperity and growth of the Internet”, said Adiel A. Akplogan, CEO at >>> AfriNIC and coordinator of 1Net. >>> >>> President Roussef nominated Prof. Virgílio Fernandes Almeida, >>> Coordinator of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and Secretary >>> for Informatics Policies, to coordinate the organization for that meeting. >>> >>> “The Internet Steering Committee acknowledges the opportunity to discuss >>> new paths for the global Internet governance and appreciates the >>> importance of a multistakeholder meeting for those discussions”, said >>> Professor Virgílio Almeida. >>> >>> Four committees shall be created in order to warrant the event’s >>> success. The committees will have the support of a shared secretary, >>> which shall help them to conduct their work and to coordinate the >>> communications. >>> >>> The four meeting committees are: >>> >>> 1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the >>> political articulation and fostering the involvement of the >>> international community. >>> >>> 2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for organizing the >>> event, including the agenda discussion and execution, and for the >>> treatment of the proposals from participants and different stakeholders; >>> >>> 3. Logistics and Organizational Committee: Responsible for overseeing >>> every logistic aspect of the meeting; >>> >>> 4. Governmental Advisory Committee: Will stay open to all governments >>> which want to contribute to the meeting. >>> >>> The meeting will allow face-to-face and remote participation of the >>> global community. Mechanisms and the schedule for receiving inputs of >>> the global community will be established. >>> >>> E-Mail for contact and input => info at cgi.br >>> >>> =========== >>> >>> [1] http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/a-07oct13-en.htm >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 27 06:58:17 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:58:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider Message-ID: <1385553497.39194.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Norbert, As at yesterday night, which was really early this morning, I was still exchanging mails with you. I no longer speak a whole lot on this list for some reasons that we have mentioned at one time or another: the undermining, the attack, the heavy flow of email, some listers' overbearing attitude etc It is true that so many things are wrong with the IGC list at the moment, and we are all aware of it.  Maybe we have not had the opportunity to say it openly, but here are a few truths: 1. The IGC is the widest, oldest Civil Society network that has followed the WSIS and the IG issues 2. We have a history, of collaboration, of team work and of producing joint actions 3. We chose you and Sala. We did, because we felt you two  are good, qualified and  have the personality to lead us 4. Being the IGC Coordinator is not a small task, the proof is that not many can/want to step into your shoes. 5. We recognise that IGC Coordinatorship is tasking: time wise, emotionally, physically, bandwidth wise, health wise and even financially. I have been on this list before it was created.  When the caucus was hosted elsewhere, before we ever drafted a charter... I'm somehow part of the silent majority and I'm happy to answer the question "why are you no longer contributing to IGC?" if anybody asks me. So on behlalf of some of the silent majority, who still believe in your leadership, in your energy, who appreciate your contribution.. I ask that you reconsider. Thank you in advance. Nnenna   @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 cveraq at gmail.com Wed Nov 27 07:29:43 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:29:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> Message-ID: <7FD82527-C4D9-4C37-9D20-876B2F737D21@gmail.com> Thank you. Congratulations and our support to all! Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq > El 27/11/2013, a las 4:20, "Ian Peter" escribió: > > > I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). > > > > > > RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma > Bertrand de la Chappelle > Stuart Hamilton > Sonigitu Ekpe > Matthew Shears > Mawaki Chango > > The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in support of their nominations by filling in the form at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat > > > > CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION > > Anriette Esterhuysen > William Drake > Izumi Aizu > Fatima Cambronero > > > > > NOMCOM MEMBERS > > > > The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were > > Deirdre Williams > > Kerry Brown > > Shaila Mistry > > David Cake > > Jefsey Morfin > > > > Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. > > > > PROCESS > > Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to encourage more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. > > The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) > > Nnenna Nwakanma * > Bertrand de la Chappelle* > Stuart Hamilton* > Sonigitu Ekpe* > Matthew Shears* > Mawaki Chango* > Mishi Choudhary > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > > > > The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before our emails) > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen * > William Drake * > Izumi Aizu * > Fatima Cambronero * > Lillian Nalwoga > > > > In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our recommendations. > > > > PROCESS > > > > The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The Nomcom then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 against each criteria. > > No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for candidates against other criteria were compiled) > > Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They did serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. > > 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) > 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the IGC (8) > 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote participation (6.5) > 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) > 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives > held by civil society.(8.5) > 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute constructively to MAG deliberations (9) > 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including the IGC on issues and progress (8) > > 8. Gender and geographic balance > > All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. > > Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come to a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment that the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been very welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had the co –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the Nomcom was being formed. > > I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your behalf. > > > > Ian Peter > > Non voting chair > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 09:10:25 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:10:25 -0200 Subject: [governance] Brazil meeting -- press release (revised english version) Message-ID: <5295FD51.90807@cafonso.ca> Dear people, some typos and translation errors were detected in the English version of the press release I sent you yesterday. Below is the new version, hopefully OK now. Sorry, I should have revised before sending as received. fraternal regards --c.a. =================== [revised for translation errors -- c.a.] November 26th 2013 Announcement of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee about the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance President Dilma Rousseff’s speech at the United Nations and the Montevideo Statement [1] prompted the opportunity to discuss proposals on a new Internet governance, which became possible by the Brazilian initiative to host the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance. The meeting is scheduled for 23 and 24 April 2014, in São Paulo, and will be organized in a partnership between CGI.br and international entities representing the different sectors involved with Internet governance. The meeting represents an opportunity for government leaders and representatives from different global sectors to discuss proposals about Internet governance and development. The purpose of that meeting is to pursue consensus about universally accepted governance principles and to improve their institutional framework. The event shall have the participation of governments, civil society, academy, international organisms and entities, as well as technical and business communities. “We would like to thank the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee for its role organizing that meeting. I genuinely believe that the global Internet community will gather in this truly multistakeholder opportunity with the goal of shaping the future towards the continued prosperity and growth of the Internet”, said Adiel A. Akplogan, CEO at AfriNIC and coordinator of 1Net. President Roussef nominated Prof. Virgílio Fernandes Almeida, Coordinator of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and Secretary for Informatics Policies, to coordinate the organization for that meeting. “The Internet Steering Committee acknowledges the opportunity to discuss new paths for the global Internet governance and appreciates the importance of a multistakeholder meeting for those discussions”, said Professor Virgílio Almeida. Four committees shall be created in order to warrant the event’s success. The committees will have the support of a shared secretary, which shall help them to conduct their work and to coordinate the communications. The four meeting committees are: 1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the political articulation and fostering the involvement of the international community. 2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for organizing the event, including the agenda discussion and execution, and for the treatment of the proposals from participants and different stakeholders; 3. Logistics and Organizational Committee: Responsible for overseeing every logistic aspect of the meeting; 4. Governmental Advisory Committee: Will stay open to all governments which want to contribute to the meeting. The meeting will allow face-to-face and remote participation of the global community. Mechanisms and the schedule for receiving inputs of the global community will be established. E-Mail for contact and input => info at cgi.br =========== [1] http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-07oct13-en.htm -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 27 09:21:41 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:51:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <20131126162411.4422a2ea@quill> Message-ID: <5295FFF5.6010702@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 27 November 2013 03:37 AM, McTim wrote: > Norbert, > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> snip >> >> >> I'd like to request the author of this change to explain the reasoning >> behind it. > Have I violated your anti-american orthodoxy? Most regrettable and uncalled for comment... It is becoming quite regular for some people- a set of them - to enjoy absolute impunity on this list.... Is this 'power', corrupt power. parminder > > the reasoning behind the change is that this meeting is NOT supposed > to come up with concrete solutions. It is supposed to discuss high > level principles IIRC. > > Looking in the archives, I see this from S. Bellagama: > > From the presidential website: > (http://blog.planalto.gov.br/brasil-vai-sediar-reuniao-internacional-sobre-governanca-da-internet-em-abril-de-2014/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=brasil-vai-sediar-reuniao-internacional-sobre-governanca-da-internet-em-abril-de-2014) > > Brazil will host international meeting on Internet governance in April 2014 > > The Ministers of Foreign Affairs , Luiz Alberto Figueiredo ; > Communications , Paulo Bernardo; and Science , Technology and > Innovation , Marco Antonio Raupp , announced on Monday ( 18 ) , during > a press conference that Brazil will host an international conference > on Internet governance on 23rd and April 24, 2014 . According to > Paulo Bernardo, the meeting should take place in São Paulo . The goal, > according to Figueiredo , is organizing a multi-stakeholder meeting to > seek common understandings about the subject . > > "The goal of the conference is a broad discussion of all stakeholders > and sectors directly linked to the internet Governments , businesses > , academia, civil society. We are acting internationally for the > protection of human rights. This is the main guidance from our > government, to protect freedom of expression, human rights and > privacy. We are determined to continue on this path", said Figueiredo > . > > The purpose of the meeting was arranged at a hearing of President > Dilma Rousseff with the CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned > Names and Numbers (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers) , Fadi Chehadé , on October 9th. In this occasion, he said > that came "to discuss with her how to achieve practical solutions > starting from her her vision for the future, because the world's > confidence in the global Internet was injured" and that the idea of > the conference was to "discuss how together we set the grounds for our > work in governing the internet". > > > >> My current perspective is that the main benefit of a high-level meeting >> as seems to be planned for Brazil should be that it could provide an >> opportunity to reach a decision on choosing a specific solution >> from among the various possibilities. > > I think your current perspective is incorrect. > >> If the choice is not made then and there, when and where will it be >> made? > I suspect it will go through a number of iterations of > meetings/discussions both pre- and post Brazil. I don't mind if NTIA > no longer has a say in authorizing root zone changes, but I do > strongly object to an elite group of folk getting together (3 per > country?) to make this change. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 09:24:18 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 06:24:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> Message-ID: <1385562258.95542.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Ian, all Thanks for a good work done under strict conditions in an urgent manner. Considering the fact that a lot of collaboration has gone on in this year's MAG nominations, please permit me to say that it is an achievement. Thank you Ian, thank you nomcom people. Thank you to other could-have-been nominees. Is it possible to being now to gather new issues on the MAG? So that whoever is retained will at least know how best to tackle things. Best regards Nnenna   @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Ian Peter wrote:   I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).     RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS   Nnenna Nwakanma Bertrand de la Chappelle Stuart Hamilton Sonigitu Ekpe Matthew Shears Mawaki Chango   The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in support of their nominations by filling in the form at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat       CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION   Anriette Esterhuysen William Drake Izumi Aizu Fatima Cambronero     NOMCOM MEMBERS   The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were Deirdre Williams Kerry Brown Shaila Mistry David Cake Jefsey Morfin   Ian Peter was non-voting Chair.   PROCESS Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to encourage more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom)  Nnenna Nwakanma * Bertrand de la Chappelle* Stuart Hamilton* Sonigitu Ekpe* Matthew Shears* Mawaki Chango* Mishi Choudhary Asif Kabani Rudi Vansnick Imran Ahmed Shah Fouad Bajwa   The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before our emails)   Anriette Esterhuysen * William Drake * Izumi Aizu  * Fatima Cambronero * Lillian Nalwoga   In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our recommendations.   PROCESS   The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The Nomcom then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria below.  Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 against each criteria. No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for candidates against other criteria were compiled) Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They did serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the IGC (8) 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote participation (6.5) 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives held by civil society.(8.5) 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute constructively to MAG deliberations (9) 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including the IGC on issues and progress (8) 8. Gender and geographic balance All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come to a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment that the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been very welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had the co –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the Nomcom was being formed. I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your behalf.   Ian Peter Non voting chair     ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 09:37:26 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:37:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: <1385562258.95542.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> <1385562258.95542.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <37A93B61-6FB2-461C-9C84-E239BB506E78@uzh.ch> +1 Thanks Ian and the nomcom for your work and support. Bill On Nov 27, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Nnenna wrote: > Dear Ian, all > > Thanks for a good work done under strict conditions in an urgent manner. > Considering the fact that a lot of collaboration has gone on in this year's MAG nominations, please permit me to say that it is an achievement. > > Thank you Ian, thank you nomcom people. Thank you to other could-have-been nominees. > > Is it possible to being now to gather new issues on the MAG? So that whoever is retained will at least know how best to tackle things. > > Best regards > > Nnenna > > @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). > > > RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS > > Nnenna Nwakanma > Bertrand de la Chappelle > Stuart Hamilton > Sonigitu Ekpe > Matthew Shears > Mawaki Chango > > The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in support of their nominations by filling in the form at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat > > > > CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION > > Anriette Esterhuysen > William Drake > Izumi Aizu > Fatima Cambronero > > > NOMCOM MEMBERS > > The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were > Deirdre Williams > Kerry Brown > Shaila Mistry > David Cake > Jefsey Morfin > > Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. > > PROCESS > Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to encourage more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. > The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) > Nnenna Nwakanma * > Bertrand de la Chappelle* > Stuart Hamilton* > Sonigitu Ekpe* > Matthew Shears* > Mawaki Chango* > Mishi Choudhary > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > > The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before our emails) > > Anriette Esterhuysen * > William Drake * > Izumi Aizu * > Fatima Cambronero * > Lillian Nalwoga > > In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our recommendations. > > PROCESS > > The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The Nomcom then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 against each criteria. > No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for candidates against other criteria were compiled) > Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They did serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. > 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) > 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the IGC (8) > 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote participation (6.5) > 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) > 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives > held by civil society.(8.5) > 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute constructively to MAG deliberations (9) > 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including the IGC on issues and progress (8) > > 8. Gender and geographic balance > All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. > Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come to a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment that the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been very welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had the co –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the Nomcom was being formed. > I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your behalf. > > Ian Peter > Non voting chair > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fatimacambronero at gmail.com Wed Nov 27 09:41:28 2013 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:41:28 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: <37A93B61-6FB2-461C-9C84-E239BB506E78@uzh.ch> References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> <1385562258.95542.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <37A93B61-6FB2-461C-9C84-E239BB506E78@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Dear Ian and all the NomCom members, Thanks for the work done and thank you very much for the IGC support to continue in my role of MAG member as civil society representative. I reiterate my commitment to continue working for our community. Best Regards, Fatima Cambronero 2013/11/27 William Drake > +1 Thanks Ian and the nomcom for your work and support. > > Bill > > > > On Nov 27, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Nnenna wrote: > > Dear Ian, all > > Thanks for a good work done under strict conditions in an urgent manner. > Considering the fact that a lot of collaboration has gone on in this > year's MAG nominations, please permit me to say that it is an achievement. > > Thank you Ian, thank you nomcom people. Thank you to other could-have-been > nominees. > > Is it possible to being now to gather new issues on the MAG? So that > whoever is retained will at least know how best to tackle things. > > Best regards > > Nnenna > > @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Ian Peter < > ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: > > I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by > Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder > Advisory Group (MAG). > > > RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS > > Nnenna Nwakanma > Bertrand de la Chappelle > Stuart Hamilton > Sonigitu Ekpe > Matthew Shears > Mawaki Chango > > The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in > support of their nominations by filling in the form at > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies > should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight > timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat > > > > CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION > > Anriette Esterhuysen > William Drake > Izumi Aizu > Fatima Cambronero > > > NOMCOM MEMBERS > > The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection > process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were > Deirdre Williams > Kerry Brown > Shaila Mistry > David Cake > Jefsey Morfin > > Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. > > PROCESS > Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for > nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to encourage > more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive > nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. > The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one > nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) > Nnenna Nwakanma * > Bertrand de la Chappelle* > Stuart Hamilton* > Sonigitu Ekpe* > Matthew Shears* > Mawaki Chango* > Mishi Choudhary > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > > The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, > asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for > endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before > our emails) > > Anriette Esterhuysen * > William Drake * > Izumi Aizu * > Fatima Cambronero * > Lillian Nalwoga > > In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our > recommendations. > > PROCESS > > The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and > advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The Nomcom > then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and > 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria > below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 against > each criteria. > No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria > was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for > candidates against other criteria were compiled) > Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection > only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They did > serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who > were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and > whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly > with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. > 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) > 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the > IGC (8) > 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote > participation (6.5) > 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) > 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives > held by civil society.(8.5) > 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute > constructively to MAG deliberations (9) > 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including > the IGC on issues and progress (8) > > 8. Gender and geographic balance > All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the > candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an > exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. > Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate > reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come to > a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment that > the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving > balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more > candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been very > welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under > which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had the > co –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the > Nomcom was being formed. > I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated > work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess > candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your > behalf. > > Ian Peter > Non voting chair > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:* http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.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 kichango at gmail.com Wed Nov 27 09:54:36 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:54:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: <37A93B61-6FB2-461C-9C84-E239BB506E78@uzh.ch> References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> <1385562258.95542.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <37A93B61-6FB2-461C-9C84-E239BB506E78@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Cher Ian, Tous, Je voudrais exprimer ma gratitude aux membres du Comité de Nomination, et particulièrement a leur chef non-votant, sur le travail impeccable accompli malgré la cacophonie ambiante et la pression du temps. Je suis honoré de figurer parmi vos choix de potentiels envoyés de la société civile au MAG. Cordialement, Mawaki -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder, DIGILEXIS Consulting http://www.digilexis.com m.chango at digilexis.com twitter.com/digilexis twitter.com/dig_mawaki Skype: digilexis On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:37 PM, William Drake wrote: > +1 Thanks Ian and the nomcom for your work and support. > > Bill > > > > On Nov 27, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Nnenna wrote: > > Dear Ian, all > > Thanks for a good work done under strict conditions in an urgent manner. > Considering the fact that a lot of collaboration has gone on in this > year's MAG nominations, please permit me to say that it is an achievement. > > Thank you Ian, thank you nomcom people. Thank you to other could-have-been > nominees. > > Is it possible to being now to gather new issues on the MAG? So that > whoever is retained will at least know how best to tackle things. > > Best regards > > Nnenna > > @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Ian Peter < > ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: > > I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by > Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder > Advisory Group (MAG). > > > RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS > > Nnenna Nwakanma > Bertrand de la Chappelle > Stuart Hamilton > Sonigitu Ekpe > Matthew Shears > Mawaki Chango > > The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in > support of their nominations by filling in the form at > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies > should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight > timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat > > > > CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION > > Anriette Esterhuysen > William Drake > Izumi Aizu > Fatima Cambronero > > > NOMCOM MEMBERS > > The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection > process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were > Deirdre Williams > Kerry Brown > Shaila Mistry > David Cake > Jefsey Morfin > > Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. > > PROCESS > Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for > nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to encourage > more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive > nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. > The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one > nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) > Nnenna Nwakanma * > Bertrand de la Chappelle* > Stuart Hamilton* > Sonigitu Ekpe* > Matthew Shears* > Mawaki Chango* > Mishi Choudhary > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > > The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, > asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for > endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before > our emails) > > Anriette Esterhuysen * > William Drake * > Izumi Aizu * > Fatima Cambronero * > Lillian Nalwoga > > In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our > recommendations. > > PROCESS > > The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and > advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The Nomcom > then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and > 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria > below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 against > each criteria. > No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria > was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for > candidates against other criteria were compiled) > Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection > only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They did > serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who > were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and > whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly > with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. > 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) > 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the > IGC (8) > 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote > participation (6.5) > 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) > 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives > held by civil society.(8.5) > 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute > constructively to MAG deliberations (9) > 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including > the IGC on issues and progress (8) > > 8. Gender and geographic balance > All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the > candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an > exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. > Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate > reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come to > a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment that > the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving > balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more > candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been very > welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under > which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had the > co –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the > Nomcom was being formed. > I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated > work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess > candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your > behalf. > > Ian Peter > Non voting chair > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 10:17:16 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:17:16 -0600 Subject: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <5295FFF5.6010702@itforchange.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <20131126162411.4422a2ea@quill> <5295FFF5.6010702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20131127151716.GA1656@hserus.net> I am surprised that you in particular raise the question of impunity, parminder. For the record, I don't quite agree with the way mctim expressed his question - but his edit had a valid point behind it. --srs (iPad) > On 27-Nov-2013, at 19:51, parminder wrote: > > >> On Wednesday 27 November 2013 03:37 AM, McTim wrote: >> Norbert, >> >>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> snip >>> >>> >>> I'd like to request the author of this change to explain the reasoning >>> behind it. >> Have I violated your anti-american orthodoxy? > > Most regrettable and uncalled for comment... It is becoming quite regular for some people- a set of them - to enjoy absolute impunity on this list.... Is this 'power', corrupt power. > > parminder > >> >> the reasoning behind the change is that this meeting is NOT supposed >> to come up with concrete solutions. It is supposed to discuss high >> level principles IIRC. >> >> Looking in the archives, I see this from S. Bellagama: >> >> From the presidential website: >> (http://blog.planalto.gov.br/brasil-vai-sediar-reuniao-internacional-sobre-governanca-da-internet-em-abril-de-2014/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=brasil-vai-sediar-reuniao-internacional-sobre-governanca-da-internet-em-abril-de-2014) >> >> Brazil will host international meeting on Internet governance in April 2014 >> >> The Ministers of Foreign Affairs , Luiz Alberto Figueiredo ; >> Communications , Paulo Bernardo; and Science , Technology and >> Innovation , Marco Antonio Raupp , announced on Monday ( 18 ) , during >> a press conference that Brazil will host an international conference >> on Internet governance on 23rd and April 24, 2014 . According to >> Paulo Bernardo, the meeting should take place in São Paulo . The goal, >> according to Figueiredo , is organizing a multi-stakeholder meeting to >> seek common understandings about the subject . >> >> "The goal of the conference is a broad discussion of all stakeholders >> and sectors directly linked to the internet Governments , businesses >> , academia, civil society. We are acting internationally for the >> protection of human rights. This is the main guidance from our >> government, to protect freedom of expression, human rights and >> privacy. We are determined to continue on this path", said Figueiredo >> . >> >> The purpose of the meeting was arranged at a hearing of President >> Dilma Rousseff with the CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned >> Names and Numbers (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and >> Numbers) , Fadi Chehadé , on October 9th. In this occasion, he said >> that came "to discuss with her how to achieve practical solutions >> starting from her her vision for the future, because the world's >> confidence in the global Internet was injured" and that the idea of >> the conference was to "discuss how together we set the grounds for our >> work in governing the internet". >> >> >> >>> My current perspective is that the main benefit of a high-level meeting >>> as seems to be planned for Brazil should be that it could provide an >>> opportunity to reach a decision on choosing a specific solution >>> from among the various possibilities. >> >> I think your current perspective is incorrect. >> >>> If the choice is not made then and there, when and where will it be >>> made? >> I suspect it will go through a number of iterations of >> meetings/discussions both pre- and post Brazil. I don't mind if NTIA >> no longer has a say in authorizing root zone changes, but I do >> strongly object to an elite group of folk getting together (3 per >> country?) to make this change. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org Wed Nov 27 10:27:06 2013 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:27:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> <1385562258.95542.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <37A93B61-6FB2-461C-9C84-E239BB506E78@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948EAC5031@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Dear Ian and colleagues on the Nomcom Many thanks for your deliberations and hard (and swift) work! Kind regards, Stuart Stuart Hamilton Director of Policy and Advocacy International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands 00 31 70 314 0884 Twitter: @ifladpa From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: 27 November 2013 15:55 To: Internet Governance; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report Cher Ian, Tous, Je voudrais exprimer ma gratitude aux membres du Comité de Nomination, et particulièrement a leur chef non-votant, sur le travail impeccable accompli malgré la cacophonie ambiante et la pression du temps. Je suis honoré de figurer parmi vos choix de potentiels envoyés de la société civile au MAG. Cordialement, Mawaki -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder, DIGILEXIS Consulting http://www.digilexis.com m.chango at digilexis.com twitter.com/digilexis twitter.com/dig_mawaki Skype: digilexis On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:37 PM, William Drake > wrote: +1 Thanks Ian and the nomcom for your work and support. Bill On Nov 27, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Nnenna > wrote: Dear Ian, all Thanks for a good work done under strict conditions in an urgent manner. Considering the fact that a lot of collaboration has gone on in this year's MAG nominations, please permit me to say that it is an achievement. Thank you Ian, thank you nomcom people. Thank you to other could-have-been nominees. Is it possible to being now to gather new issues on the MAG? So that whoever is retained will at least know how best to tackle things. Best regards Nnenna @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS Nnenna Nwakanma Bertrand de la Chappelle Stuart Hamilton Sonigitu Ekpe Matthew Shears Mawaki Chango The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in support of their nominations by filling in the form at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION Anriette Esterhuysen William Drake Izumi Aizu Fatima Cambronero NOMCOM MEMBERS The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were Deirdre Williams Kerry Brown Shaila Mistry David Cake Jefsey Morfin Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. PROCESS Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to encourage more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) Nnenna Nwakanma * Bertrand de la Chappelle* Stuart Hamilton* Sonigitu Ekpe* Matthew Shears* Mawaki Chango* Mishi Choudhary Asif Kabani Rudi Vansnick Imran Ahmed Shah Fouad Bajwa The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before our emails) Anriette Esterhuysen * William Drake * Izumi Aizu * Fatima Cambronero * Lillian Nalwoga In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our recommendations. PROCESS The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The Nomcom then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 against each criteria. No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for candidates against other criteria were compiled) Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They did serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the IGC (8) 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote participation (6.5) 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives held by civil society.(8.5) 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute constructively to MAG deliberations (9) 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including the IGC on issues and progress (8) 8. Gender and geographic balance All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come to a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment that the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been very welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under which we operated - however, it would have been even more limited had the co -coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the Nomcom was being formed. I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your behalf. Ian Peter Non voting chair ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 10:27:30 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:27:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <5295FFF5.6010702@itforchange.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <20131126162411.4422a2ea@quill> <5295FFF5.6010702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: All, On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:21 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 27 November 2013 03:37 AM, McTim wrote: > >> Norbert, >> >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> snip >>> >>> >>> >>> I'd like to request the author of this change to explain the reasoning >>> behind it. >>> >> Have I violated your anti-american orthodoxy? >> > > Most regrettable and uncalled for comment Agreed, there was supposed to be a smiley there, and then I thought better of it and decided to delete that line, but I never got around to it. Mea Culpa. The line was prompted by the 'request' from a coco to explain an edit in the pad. The pad is a tool meant to be used so we don't have back and forth on the list (said back and forth I always found to be useful BTW). In any case, I wasn't pleased that I was asked to explain why I removed something that should never have been there in the first place. > ... It is becoming quite regular for some people- a set of them - to enjoy > absolute impunity on this list.... Is this 'power', corrupt power. > > Coming from a guy who verbally abused and physically intimidated other Members of the Caucus at a f2f meeting? that's pretty rich! -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 27 10:42:01 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 21:12:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <20131126162411.4422a2ea@quill> <5295FFF5.6010702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <529612C9.9090202@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 27 November 2013 08:57 PM, McTim wrote: > All, > > ... It is becoming quite regular for some people- a set of them - > to enjoy absolute impunity on this list.... Is this 'power', > corrupt power. > > > Coming from a guy who verbally abused and physically intimidated other > Members of the Caucus at a f2f meeting? that's pretty rich! Bespeaks your impunity of course! This place is really getting disgusting - a free for all (no, in fact only for some, of one kind of persuasions).... parminder > > > -- > 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 Wed Nov 27 10:57:16 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 21:27:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <529612C9.9090202@itforchange.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <20131126162411.4422a2ea@quill> <5295FFF5.6010702@itforchange.net> <529612C9.9090202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: You should have been ejected from the caucus after that display, parminder. On any list I run, that would have happened. Debates get heated yes, never threatening so far before the face to face, McTim calling Norbert's statement anti American is open to debate but this is far from verbal abuse or intimidation. I would ask that we all stop this discussion till the co cos weigh in, and for my part Norbert is welcome to stay on as co co but if he wishes to leave he has my respect for disengaging from the role of moderating much more poisonous discourse on this list so far. --srs (iPad) > On 27-Nov-2013, at 21:12, parminder wrote: > > >> On Wednesday 27 November 2013 08:57 PM, McTim wrote: >> All, >> >> >>> ... It is becoming quite regular for some people- a set of them - to enjoy absolute impunity on this list.... Is this 'power', corrupt power. >> >> Coming from a guy who verbally abused and physically intimidated other Members of the Caucus at a f2f meeting? that's pretty rich! > > Bespeaks your impunity of course! This place is really getting disgusting - a free for all (no, in fact only for some, of one kind of persuasions).... parminder > > >> >> >> -- >> 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 kerry at kdbsystems.com Wed Nov 27 11:13:38 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:13:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] Resignation (was Re: URGENT: Request for input...) In-Reply-To: <20131127114307.7d9b8b0a@quill> References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> <20131126185935.4b4b265e@quill> <4C31E068-5B06-4652-9B4F-1285422181AF@uzh.ch> ,<20131127114307.7d9b8b0a@quill> Message-ID: Norbert I sympathize with you. You have my thanks for all the work you have done. Everyone else I just finished being involved with the nominating committee to nominate people from the IGC to the MAG. It was very refreshing to work with such a collaborative group of people. I had almost disengaged from participating on the governance mailing list because of all the personal attacks, vitriol, and lack of trying for consensus rather than insisting on personal views winning the day. This list will become increasingly irrelevant if this continues. We need to find a way to bring the list back to discussions rather than arguments. Working on the noncom showed me this can be done. There was a wide range of differing opinions but we all worked to find consensus. Lets do the same for the list at large. If we don't the list will very quickly self destruct and an important voice for civil society will cease to be heard. Kerry Brown ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 2:43 AM To: Internet Governance Subject: [governance] Resignation (was Re: URGENT: Request for input...) Dear all Hereby I announce my resignation from the role of IGC co-coordinator, in protest of 1) The overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members. 2) The specific lack of constructive engagement in relation to recent attempts at using the IGC statement drafting process (for example, in the most recent attempt, the only reaction was an attempt to undermine the stated purpose of the Brazil meeting, and when I tried to have a constructive conversation about that point, the response was in fact a personal attack). From this criticism of "lack of supportive attitude" I'd like to explicitly exclude the "silent majority" (there's nothing wrong with simply lurking) as well as everyone else to whom this criticism does not apply, most but not all of them civil society people. Actually a lot of people were seeking to be supportive (I'm sure that you know who you are! And I hereby thank you!) but faced the same reality as I am the there are obvious limits on how much can be done in a generally hostile environment where the hostile attitudes are so deeply ingrained that the attempt to enforce the posting rules triggers so much obnoxiousness that the overall level of hostility increases rather than decreases. In fact the number of people who were seeking to be supportive may well exceed the number of people who together created what I've called "the overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members". The overall attitude communicated by a group is not determined by how the majority feel, but by what is most of the time being said and done, or not. As a point of accountability, I'm perfectly willing to answer any questions that people may want to ask about my actions during the time that I served as co-coordinator, as well as about the underlying reasons, to the extent that such questions can be answered without violating reasonable expectations of confidentiality (e.g. I'm still not going to answer questions about he "private warnings" process). Greetings, Norbert Mawaki Chango wrote: > Strange and confusing, indeed. > The last line of the PR Newswire pieces on this panel (as per the URL > forwarded initially) reads: "Additional members to be confirmed." And > all what we hear next is "hurry up and give your blessing to the list > of names that a handful number of us have _informally_ agreed on." > One would have hoped that IGC co-cos would provide some feedback of > the kind Bill just provided as well as the clarification he asked > for. On the other hand, I can't even count how many times now I have > read something like "we will set up a proper NomCom process" blah > blah. It's not as if we've been busy doing some productive > substantive work in IGC. Informal and ad hoc, that's how we roll > these days across CS. > > For the two names that have been asked for, I'd suggest: > 1) Milton Mueller > 2) Your choice > > Mawaki > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:10 PM, William Drake > wrote: > > > Hi > > > > When Fadi was told last weekend in BA that there had been > > expressions of discontent on various IG lists about the lack of CS > > representation, he said ok, send me a name from the community. I > > didn’t understand this as an ironclad commitment that they’d > > automatically appoint any name we provided, but rather as an > > invitation to suggest someone we think would be good (on a panel of > > CEOs and politicians). Now it’s been decided to demand that two > > people be empaneled, and a widening search for names is underway. > > Has anyone been in touch with Fadi or President Ilves to let them > > know what we’re doing and get their reaction? As the first meeting > > of the HLP is in two weeks, one imagines the planning is well > > underway, so it would be good for them to know what to expect, > > when…. > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > > > On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > Dear all > > > > Here's a quick update... > > > > So far, in addition the following have been suggested, some in > > public postings, some privately: > > > > Anju Mangal, Grace Githaiga, Judy Okite, Nnenna Nwakanma, Michael > > Gurstein, Thomas Lowenhaupt. > > > > I have written to each of them to enquire about their willingness to > > serve on this "Panel". So far, Grace Githaiga, Michael Gurstein, > > and Thomas Lowenhaupt have replied positively. > > > > Please note that the deadline for any additional suggestions is > > rather soon. > > > > In regard to the question that has been raised about process: This > > is right now an ad hoc process aimed at making --in a way that is > > coordinated across civil society networks as well as we can in a > > very tight timeframe-- a demand for increased civil society > > representation on the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet > > Cooperation"; this is not directly related to 1net nor to any of > > the various committees that will need to be formed in view of the > > Global Meeting in Brazil. I certainly hope that it will be possible > > to set up a proper NomCom process for those selection tasks, and > > that we'll find a way to do that in a way that is again coordinated > > across civil society networks. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Am Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:56:57 +0100 > > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > > > > Dear all, > > > > there is now an informal coordination group of some kind > > (tentatively called "steering committee", although I expect that > > that name will probably be changed) consisting of Anriette > > Esterhuysen for APC, Jeremy Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for > > NCSG, Virginia Paque for DIPLO, myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as > > facilitator. > > > > The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society > > representation on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet > > Cooperation" organized by ICANN [1]. > > > > [1] > > > > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html > > > > The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional > > civil society people for this panel. > > > > The following names have been suggested so far: > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, > > Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. > > > > In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you > > wish to be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow > > Tuesday which is about 24 hours from now.) > > > > 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 > > > > > > ********************************************************** > > 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 (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > > 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 dave at difference.com.au Wed Nov 27 11:22:34 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:22:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] Resignation (was Re: URGENT: Request for input...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I’d like to echo what Kerry said - without going into detail on NomCom deliberations, there were clearly a range of different opinions on selection, with regards to how to balance the various desirable qualities of a range of candidates, but the process was collaborative and civil throughout and consensus achieved, within a very short time frame. Regards David -- David Cake Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig) On Wednesday, 27 November 2013 at 1:13 pm, Kerry Brown wrote: > Norbert > > I sympathize with you. You have my thanks for all the work you have done. > > Everyone else > > I just finished being involved with the nominating committee to nominate people from the IGC to the MAG. It was very refreshing to work with such a collaborative group of people. I had almost disengaged from participating on the governance mailing list because of all the personal attacks, vitriol, and lack of trying for consensus rather than insisting on personal views winning the day. This list will become increasingly irrelevant if this continues. We need to find a way to bring the list back to discussions rather than arguments. Working on the noncom showed me this can be done. There was a wide range of differing opinions but we all worked to find consensus. Lets do the same for the list at large. If we don't the list will very quickly self destruct and an important voice for civil society will cease to be heard. > > Kerry Brown > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org (mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org) [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org (mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org)] on behalf of Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch (mailto:nb at bollow.ch)] > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 2:43 AM > To: Internet Governance > Subject: [governance] Resignation (was Re: URGENT: Request for input...) > > Dear all > > Hereby I announce my resignation from the role of IGC co-coordinator, > in protest of > > 1) The overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members. > > 2) The specific lack of constructive engagement in relation to recent > attempts at using the IGC statement drafting process (for example, > in the most recent attempt, the only reaction was an attempt to > undermine the stated purpose of the Brazil meeting, and when I tried > to have a constructive conversation about that point, the response > was in fact a personal attack). > > From this criticism of "lack of supportive attitude" I'd like to > explicitly exclude the "silent majority" (there's nothing wrong with > simply lurking) as well as everyone else to whom this criticism does > not apply, most but not all of them civil society people. Actually a > lot of people were seeking to be supportive (I'm sure that you know > who you are! And I hereby thank you!) but faced the same reality as I am > the there are obvious limits on how much can be done in a generally > hostile environment where the hostile attitudes are so deeply ingrained > that the attempt to enforce the posting rules triggers so much > obnoxiousness that the overall level of hostility increases rather than > decreases. > > In fact the number of people who were seeking to be supportive may well > exceed the number of people who together created what I've called "the > overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members". The overall > attitude communicated by a group is not determined by how the majority > feel, but by what is most of the time being said and done, or not. > > As a point of accountability, I'm perfectly willing to answer any > questions that people may want to ask about my actions during the time > that I served as co-coordinator, as well as about the underlying > reasons, to the extent that such questions can be answered without > violating reasonable expectations of confidentiality (e.g. I'm still > not going to answer questions about he "private warnings" process). > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Strange and confusing, indeed. > > The last line of the PR Newswire pieces on this panel (as per the URL > > forwarded initially) reads: "Additional members to be confirmed." And > > all what we hear next is "hurry up and give your blessing to the list > > of names that a handful number of us have _informally_ agreed on." > > One would have hoped that IGC co-cos would provide some feedback of > > the kind Bill just provided as well as the clarification he asked > > for. On the other hand, I can't even count how many times now I have > > read something like "we will set up a proper NomCom process" blah > > blah. It's not as if we've been busy doing some productive > > substantive work in IGC. Informal and ad hoc, that's how we roll > > these days across CS. > > > > For the two names that have been asked for, I'd suggest: > > 1) Milton Mueller > > 2) Your choice > > > > Mawaki > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:10 PM, William Drake > > wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > When Fadi was told last weekend in BA that there had been > > > expressions of discontent on various IG lists about the lack of CS > > > representation, he said ok, send me a name from the community. I > > > didn’t understand this as an ironclad commitment that they’d > > > automatically appoint any name we provided, but rather as an > > > invitation to suggest someone we think would be good (on a panel of > > > CEOs and politicians). Now it’s been decided to demand that two > > > people be empaneled, and a widening search for names is underway. > > > Has anyone been in touch with Fadi or President Ilves to let them > > > know what we’re doing and get their reaction? As the first meeting > > > of the HLP is in two weeks, one imagines the planning is well > > > underway, so it would be good for them to know what to expect, > > > when…. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > > Dear all > > > > > > Here's a quick update... > > > > > > So far, in addition the following have been suggested, some in > > > public postings, some privately: > > > > > > Anju Mangal, Grace Githaiga, Judy Okite, Nnenna Nwakanma, Michael > > > Gurstein, Thomas Lowenhaupt. > > > > > > I have written to each of them to enquire about their willingness to > > > serve on this "Panel". So far, Grace Githaiga, Michael Gurstein, > > > and Thomas Lowenhaupt have replied positively. > > > > > > Please note that the deadline for any additional suggestions is > > > rather soon. > > > > > > In regard to the question that has been raised about process: This > > > is right now an ad hoc process aimed at making --in a way that is > > > coordinated across civil society networks as well as we can in a > > > very tight timeframe-- a demand for increased civil society > > > representation on the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet > > > Cooperation"; this is not directly related to 1net nor to any of > > > the various committees that will need to be formed in view of the > > > Global Meeting in Brazil. I certainly hope that it will be possible > > > to set up a proper NomCom process for those selection tasks, and > > > that we'll find a way to do that in a way that is again coordinated > > > across civil society networks. > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > Am Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:56:57 +0100 > > > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > there is now an informal coordination group of some kind > > > (tentatively called "steering committee", although I expect that > > > that name will probably be changed) consisting of Anriette > > > Esterhuysen for APC, Jeremy Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for > > > NCSG, Virginia Paque for DIPLO, myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as > > > facilitator. > > > > > > The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society > > > representation on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet > > > Cooperation" organized by ICANN [1]. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html > > > > > > The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional > > > civil society people for this panel. > > > > > > The following names have been suggested so far: > > > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, > > > Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. > > > > > > In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you > > > wish to be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow > > > Tuesday which is about 24 hours from now.) > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org (mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org) > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > ********************************************************** > > > William J. Drake > > > International Fellow & Lecturer > > > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > > > University of Zurich, Switzerland > > > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > > > ICANN, www.ncuc.org (http://www.ncuc.org) > > > william.drake at uzh.ch (mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch) (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com) (h), > > > www.williamdrake.org (http://www.williamdrake.org) > > > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org (mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org) > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org (mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org) > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Nov 27 11:40:59 2013 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:40:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Resignation (was Re: URGENT: Request for input...) In-Reply-To: <20131127114307.7d9b8b0a@quill> References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> <20131126185935.4b4b265e@quill> <4C31E068-5B06-4652-9B4F-1285422181AF@uzh.ch> <20131127114307.7d9b8b0a@quill> Message-ID: Norbert Sorry for your experience. Thanks for your hard work. Jacqueline On Nov 27, 2013 6:44 AM, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: > Dear all > > Hereby I announce my resignation from the role of IGC co-coordinator, > in protest of > > 1) The overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members. > > 2) The specific lack of constructive engagement in relation to recent > attempts at using the IGC statement drafting process (for example, > in the most recent attempt, the only reaction was an attempt to > undermine the stated purpose of the Brazil meeting, and when I tried > to have a constructive conversation about that point, the response > was in fact a personal attack). > > From this criticism of "lack of supportive attitude" I'd like to > explicitly exclude the "silent majority" (there's nothing wrong with > simply lurking) as well as everyone else to whom this criticism does > not apply, most but not all of them civil society people. Actually a > lot of people were seeking to be supportive (I'm sure that you know > who you are! And I hereby thank you!) but faced the same reality as I am > the there are obvious limits on how much can be done in a generally > hostile environment where the hostile attitudes are so deeply ingrained > that the attempt to enforce the posting rules triggers so much > obnoxiousness that the overall level of hostility increases rather than > decreases. > > In fact the number of people who were seeking to be supportive may well > exceed the number of people who together created what I've called "the > overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members". The overall > attitude communicated by a group is not determined by how the majority > feel, but by what is most of the time being said and done, or not. > > As a point of accountability, I'm perfectly willing to answer any > questions that people may want to ask about my actions during the time > that I served as co-coordinator, as well as about the underlying > reasons, to the extent that such questions can be answered without > violating reasonable expectations of confidentiality (e.g. I'm still > not going to answer questions about he "private warnings" process). > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Strange and confusing, indeed. > > The last line of the PR Newswire pieces on this panel (as per the URL > > forwarded initially) reads: "Additional members to be confirmed." And > > all what we hear next is "hurry up and give your blessing to the list > > of names that a handful number of us have _informally_ agreed on." > > One would have hoped that IGC co-cos would provide some feedback of > > the kind Bill just provided as well as the clarification he asked > > for. On the other hand, I can't even count how many times now I have > > read something like "we will set up a proper NomCom process" blah > > blah. It's not as if we've been busy doing some productive > > substantive work in IGC. Informal and ad hoc, that's how we roll > > these days across CS. > > > > For the two names that have been asked for, I'd suggest: > > 1) Milton Mueller > > 2) Your choice > > > > Mawaki > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:10 PM, William Drake > > wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > When Fadi was told last weekend in BA that there had been > > > expressions of discontent on various IG lists about the lack of CS > > > representation, he said ok, send me a name from the community. I > > > didn’t understand this as an ironclad commitment that they’d > > > automatically appoint any name we provided, but rather as an > > > invitation to suggest someone we think would be good (on a panel of > > > CEOs and politicians). Now it’s been decided to demand that two > > > people be empaneled, and a widening search for names is underway. > > > Has anyone been in touch with Fadi or President Ilves to let them > > > know what we’re doing and get their reaction? As the first meeting > > > of the HLP is in two weeks, one imagines the planning is well > > > underway, so it would be good for them to know what to expect, > > > when…. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > > Dear all > > > > > > Here's a quick update... > > > > > > So far, in addition the following have been suggested, some in > > > public postings, some privately: > > > > > > Anju Mangal, Grace Githaiga, Judy Okite, Nnenna Nwakanma, Michael > > > Gurstein, Thomas Lowenhaupt. > > > > > > I have written to each of them to enquire about their willingness to > > > serve on this "Panel". So far, Grace Githaiga, Michael Gurstein, > > > and Thomas Lowenhaupt have replied positively. > > > > > > Please note that the deadline for any additional suggestions is > > > rather soon. > > > > > > In regard to the question that has been raised about process: This > > > is right now an ad hoc process aimed at making --in a way that is > > > coordinated across civil society networks as well as we can in a > > > very tight timeframe-- a demand for increased civil society > > > representation on the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet > > > Cooperation"; this is not directly related to 1net nor to any of > > > the various committees that will need to be formed in view of the > > > Global Meeting in Brazil. I certainly hope that it will be possible > > > to set up a proper NomCom process for those selection tasks, and > > > that we'll find a way to do that in a way that is again coordinated > > > across civil society networks. > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > Am Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:56:57 +0100 > > > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > there is now an informal coordination group of some kind > > > (tentatively called "steering committee", although I expect that > > > that name will probably be changed) consisting of Anriette > > > Esterhuysen for APC, Jeremy Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for > > > NCSG, Virginia Paque for DIPLO, myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as > > > facilitator. > > > > > > The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society > > > representation on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet > > > Cooperation" organized by ICANN [1]. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html > > > > > > The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional > > > civil society people for this panel. > > > > > > The following names have been suggested so far: > > > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, > > > Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. > > > > > > In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you > > > wish to be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow > > > Tuesday which is about 24 hours from now.) > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > ********************************************************** > > > 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 (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Nov 27 13:48:47 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:48:47 +1100 Subject: [governance] Resignation (was Re: URGENT: Request for input...) In-Reply-To: <20131127114307.7d9b8b0a@quill> References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill><20131126185935.4b4b265e@quill><4C31E068-5B06-4652-9B4F-1285422181AF@uzh.ch> <20131127114307.7d9b8b0a@quill> Message-ID: <5F5E1AFA1E7D4EAD8F0AFCC982ACD7BD@Toshiba> Sorry to hear this Norbert - I think the last couple of years have been very tough for everyone - certainly tough for all of us trying to contribute positively, and it must have been much tougher for those attempting to co ordinate. I appreciate your decision and the timing. We are within a week of new elections, and with a number of good candidates putting their name forward, perhaps a new start with two new co ordinators isn't such a bad thing. An opportunity perhaps to solve a few serious problems. I have had the opportunity to work closely with you on a few issues, and I do appreciate the perspective you have brought to a number of issues. I do hope civil society does not lose these altogether. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:43 PM To: Internet Governance Subject: [governance] Resignation (was Re: URGENT: Request for input...) Dear all Hereby I announce my resignation from the role of IGC co-coordinator, in protest of 1) The overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members. 2) The specific lack of constructive engagement in relation to recent attempts at using the IGC statement drafting process (for example, in the most recent attempt, the only reaction was an attempt to undermine the stated purpose of the Brazil meeting, and when I tried to have a constructive conversation about that point, the response was in fact a personal attack). From this criticism of "lack of supportive attitude" I'd like to explicitly exclude the "silent majority" (there's nothing wrong with simply lurking) as well as everyone else to whom this criticism does not apply, most but not all of them civil society people. Actually a lot of people were seeking to be supportive (I'm sure that you know who you are! And I hereby thank you!) but faced the same reality as I am the there are obvious limits on how much can be done in a generally hostile environment where the hostile attitudes are so deeply ingrained that the attempt to enforce the posting rules triggers so much obnoxiousness that the overall level of hostility increases rather than decreases. In fact the number of people who were seeking to be supportive may well exceed the number of people who together created what I've called "the overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members". The overall attitude communicated by a group is not determined by how the majority feel, but by what is most of the time being said and done, or not. As a point of accountability, I'm perfectly willing to answer any questions that people may want to ask about my actions during the time that I served as co-coordinator, as well as about the underlying reasons, to the extent that such questions can be answered without violating reasonable expectations of confidentiality (e.g. I'm still not going to answer questions about he "private warnings" process). Greetings, Norbert Mawaki Chango wrote: > Strange and confusing, indeed. > The last line of the PR Newswire pieces on this panel (as per the URL > forwarded initially) reads: "Additional members to be confirmed." And > all what we hear next is "hurry up and give your blessing to the list > of names that a handful number of us have _informally_ agreed on." > One would have hoped that IGC co-cos would provide some feedback of > the kind Bill just provided as well as the clarification he asked > for. On the other hand, I can't even count how many times now I have > read something like "we will set up a proper NomCom process" blah > blah. It's not as if we've been busy doing some productive > substantive work in IGC. Informal and ad hoc, that's how we roll > these days across CS. > > For the two names that have been asked for, I'd suggest: > 1) Milton Mueller > 2) Your choice > > Mawaki > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:10 PM, William Drake > wrote: > > > Hi > > > > When Fadi was told last weekend in BA that there had been > > expressions of discontent on various IG lists about the lack of CS > > representation, he said ok, send me a name from the community. I > > didn’t understand this as an ironclad commitment that they’d > > automatically appoint any name we provided, but rather as an > > invitation to suggest someone we think would be good (on a panel of > > CEOs and politicians). Now it’s been decided to demand that two > > people be empaneled, and a widening search for names is underway. > > Has anyone been in touch with Fadi or President Ilves to let them > > know what we’re doing and get their reaction? As the first meeting > > of the HLP is in two weeks, one imagines the planning is well > > underway, so it would be good for them to know what to expect, > > when…. > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > > > On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > Dear all > > > > Here's a quick update... > > > > So far, in addition the following have been suggested, some in > > public postings, some privately: > > > > Anju Mangal, Grace Githaiga, Judy Okite, Nnenna Nwakanma, Michael > > Gurstein, Thomas Lowenhaupt. > > > > I have written to each of them to enquire about their willingness to > > serve on this "Panel". So far, Grace Githaiga, Michael Gurstein, > > and Thomas Lowenhaupt have replied positively. > > > > Please note that the deadline for any additional suggestions is > > rather soon. > > > > In regard to the question that has been raised about process: This > > is right now an ad hoc process aimed at making --in a way that is > > coordinated across civil society networks as well as we can in a > > very tight timeframe-- a demand for increased civil society > > representation on the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet > > Cooperation"; this is not directly related to 1net nor to any of > > the various committees that will need to be formed in view of the > > Global Meeting in Brazil. I certainly hope that it will be possible > > to set up a proper NomCom process for those selection tasks, and > > that we'll find a way to do that in a way that is again coordinated > > across civil society networks. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Am Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:56:57 +0100 > > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > > > > Dear all, > > > > there is now an informal coordination group of some kind > > (tentatively called "steering committee", although I expect that > > that name will probably be changed) consisting of Anriette > > Esterhuysen for APC, Jeremy Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for > > NCSG, Virginia Paque for DIPLO, myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as > > facilitator. > > > > The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society > > representation on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet > > Cooperation" organized by ICANN [1]. > > > > [1] > > > > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html > > > > The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional > > civil society people for this panel. > > > > The following names have been suggested so far: > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, > > Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. > > > > In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you > > wish to be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow > > Tuesday which is about 24 hours from now.) > > > > 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 > > > > > > ********************************************************** > > 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 (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 shailam at yahoo.com Wed Nov 27 14:23:28 2013 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:23:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Resignation (was Re: URGENT: Request for input...) In-Reply-To: <5F5E1AFA1E7D4EAD8F0AFCC982ACD7BD@Toshiba> References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill><20131126185935.4b4b265e@quill><4C31E068-5B06-4652-9B4F-1285422181AF@uzh.ch> <20131127114307.7d9b8b0a@quill> <5F5E1AFA1E7D4EAD8F0AFCC982ACD7BD@Toshiba> Message-ID: <1385580208.37528.YahooMailNeo@web160501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear Nobert Thank you for the time and effort that you have put in on our behalf. We appreciate it ! I hear and understand the statement that you have made in support of your decision to resign. Needless to say, I am sorry to hear that things have gotten so challenging.Nonetheless, I would urge you to reconsider your resignation. Yes indeed,some individuals do indeed push the limits! I served on the Nomcom this year and whilst we all held different views, we did find a way of reaching consensus in a short time and quite painlessly. This can only be done if we individually focus on the goals of the cause and the job to be done rather than personal "posturing". It was a pleasure to do the job this year.  warm regards Shaila Rao Mistry     President StemInstitute Transforming Ideals into Action   President JAYCOMMI Input Technology With A Human Touch   www.jaycopanels.com Tel: 951 738 2000   MWOSB         The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:48 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Sorry to hear this Norbert - I think the last couple of years have been very tough for everyone - certainly tough for all of us trying to contribute positively, and it must have been much tougher for those attempting to co ordinate. I appreciate your decision and the timing. We are within a week of new elections, and with a number of good candidates putting their name forward, perhaps a new start with two new co ordinators isn't such a bad thing. An opportunity perhaps to solve a few serious problems. I have had the opportunity to work closely with you on a few issues, and I do appreciate the perspective you have brought to a number of issues. I do hope civil society does not lose these altogether. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:43 PM To: Internet Governance Subject: [governance] Resignation (was Re: URGENT: Request for input...) Dear all Hereby I announce my resignation from the role of IGC co-coordinator, in protest of 1) The overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members. 2) The specific lack of constructive engagement in relation to recent   attempts at using the IGC statement drafting process (for example,   in the most recent attempt, the only reaction was an attempt to   undermine the stated purpose of the Brazil meeting, and when I tried   to have a constructive conversation about that point, the response   was in fact a personal attack). From this criticism of "lack of supportive attitude" I'd like to explicitly exclude the "silent majority" (there's nothing wrong with simply lurking) as well as everyone else to whom this criticism does not apply, most but not all of them civil society people. Actually a lot of people were seeking to be supportive (I'm sure that you know who you are! And I hereby thank you!) but faced the same reality as I am the there are obvious limits on how much can be done in a generally hostile environment where the hostile attitudes are so deeply ingrained that the attempt to enforce the posting rules triggers so much obnoxiousness that the overall level of hostility increases rather than decreases. In fact the number of people who were seeking to be supportive may well exceed the number of people who together created what I've called "the overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members". The overall attitude communicated by a group is not determined by how the majority feel, but by what is most of the time being said and done, or not. As a point of accountability, I'm perfectly willing to answer any questions that people may want to ask about my actions during the time that I served as co-coordinator, as well as about the underlying reasons, to the extent that such questions can be answered without violating reasonable expectations of confidentiality (e.g. I'm still not going to answer questions about he "private warnings" process). Greetings, Norbert Mawaki Chango wrote: > Strange and confusing, indeed. > The last line of the PR Newswire pieces on this panel (as per the URL > forwarded initially) reads: "Additional members to be confirmed." And > all what we hear next is "hurry up and give your blessing to the list > of names that a handful number of us have _informally_ agreed on." > One would have hoped that IGC co-cos would provide some feedback of > the kind Bill just provided as well as the clarification he asked > for. On the other hand, I can't even count how many times now I have > read something like "we will set up a proper NomCom process" blah > blah. It's not as if we've been busy doing some productive > substantive work in IGC. Informal and ad hoc, that's how we roll > these days across CS. > > For the two names that have been asked for, I'd suggest: > 1) Milton Mueller > 2) Your choice > > Mawaki > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:10 PM, William Drake > wrote: > > > Hi > > > > When Fadi was told last weekend in BA that there had been > > expressions of discontent on various IG lists about the lack of CS > > representation, he said ok, send me a name from the community.  I > > didn’t understand this as an ironclad commitment that they’d > > automatically appoint any name we provided, but rather as an > > invitation to suggest someone we think would be good (on a panel of > > CEOs and politicians).  Now it’s been decided to demand that two > > people be empaneled, and a widening search for names is underway. > > Has anyone been in touch with Fadi or President Ilves to let them > > know what we’re doing and get their reaction?  As the first meeting > > of the HLP is in two weeks, one imagines the planning is well > > underway, so it would be good for them to know what to expect, > > when…. > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > > > On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > Dear all > > > > Here's a quick update... > > > > So far, in addition the following have been suggested, some in > > public postings, some privately: > > > > Anju Mangal, Grace Githaiga, Judy Okite, Nnenna Nwakanma, Michael > > Gurstein, Thomas Lowenhaupt. > > > > I have written to each of them to enquire about their willingness to > > serve on this "Panel". So far, Grace Githaiga, Michael Gurstein, > > and Thomas Lowenhaupt have replied positively. > > > > Please note that the deadline for any additional suggestions is > > rather soon. > > > > In regard to the question that has been raised about process: This > > is right now an ad hoc process aimed at making --in a way that is > > coordinated across civil society networks as well as we can in a > > very tight timeframe-- a demand for increased civil society > > representation on the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet > > Cooperation"; this is not directly related to 1net nor to any of > > the various committees that will need to be formed in view of the > > Global Meeting in Brazil. I certainly hope that it will be possible > > to set up a proper NomCom process for those selection tasks, and > > that we'll find a way to do that in a way that is again coordinated > > across civil society networks. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Am Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:56:57 +0100 > > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > > > > Dear all, > > > > there is now an informal coordination group of some kind > > (tentatively called "steering committee", although I expect that > > that name will probably be changed) consisting of Anriette > > Esterhuysen for APC, Jeremy Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for > > NCSG, Virginia Paque for DIPLO, myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as > > facilitator. > > > > The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society > > representation on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet > > Cooperation" organized by ICANN [1]. > > > > [1] > > > > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html > > > > The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional > > civil society people for this panel. > > > > The following names have been suggested so far: > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, > > Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. > > > > In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you > > wish to be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow > > Tuesday which is about 24 hours from now.) > > > > 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 > > > > > > ********************************************************** > > 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 (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > >  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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Nov 27 14:26:25 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:56:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948EAC5031@MFP02.IFLA.lan> References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> <1385562258.95542.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <37A93B61-6FB2-461C-9C84-E239BB506E78@uzh.ch> <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948EAC5031@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: That's a great slate of candidates! Congratulations to all those selected as nominees, and thank you so much to Ian and the NomCom for their great work on this difficult task. Best regards, Anja On 27 November 2013 20:57, Stuart Hamilton wrote: > Dear Ian and colleagues on the Nomcom > > > > Many thanks for your deliberations and hard (and swift) work! > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Stuart > > > > > > Stuart Hamilton > > Director of Policy and Advocacy > > International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) > > P.O. Box 95312 > 2509 CH The Hague > Netherlands > > > > 00 31 70 314 0884 > > > > Twitter: @ifladpa > > > > > > > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Mawaki Chango > *Sent:* 27 November 2013 15:55 > *To:* Internet Governance; Ian Peter > *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report > > > > Cher Ian, Tous, > > > > Je voudrais exprimer ma gratitude aux membres du Comité de Nomination, et > particulièrement a leur chef non-votant, sur le travail impeccable accompli > malgré la cacophonie ambiante et la pression du temps. Je suis honoré de > figurer parmi vos choix de potentiels envoyés de la société civile au MAG. > > > > Cordialement, > > > > Mawaki > > > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > Mawaki Chango, PhD > > Founder, DIGILEXIS Consulting > > http://www.digilexis.com > > m.chango at digilexis.com > > twitter.com/digilexis > twitter.com/dig_mawaki > > Skype: digilexis > > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:37 PM, William Drake > wrote: > > +1 Thanks Ian and the nomcom for your work and support. > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Nnenna wrote: > > > > Dear Ian, all > > > > Thanks for a good work done under strict conditions in an urgent manner. > > Considering the fact that a lot of collaboration has gone on in this > year's MAG nominations, please permit me to say that it is an achievement. > > > > Thank you Ian, thank you nomcom people. Thank you to other could-have-been > nominees. > > > > Is it possible to being now to gather new issues on the MAG? So that > whoever is retained will at least know how best to tackle things. > > > > Best regards > > > > Nnenna > > > > @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > > > I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by > Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder > Advisory Group (MAG). > > > > > > RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma > > Bertrand de la Chappelle > > Stuart Hamilton > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Matthew Shears > > Mawaki Chango > > > > The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in > support of their nominations by filling in the form at > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies > should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight > timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat > > > > > > > > CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen > William Drake > Izumi Aizu > Fatima Cambronero > > > > > > NOMCOM MEMBERS > > > > The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection > process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were > > Deirdre Williams > > Kerry Brown > > Shaila Mistry > > David Cake > > Jefsey Morfin > > > > Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. > > > > PROCESS > > Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for > nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to encourage > more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive > nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. > > The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one > nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) > > Nnenna Nwakanma * > > Bertrand de la Chappelle* > > Stuart Hamilton* > > Sonigitu Ekpe* > > Matthew Shears* > > Mawaki Chango* > > Mishi Choudhary > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > > > > The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, > asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for > endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before > our emails) > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen * > William Drake * > Izumi Aizu * > Fatima Cambronero * > Lillian Nalwoga > > > > In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our > recommendations. > > > > PROCESS > > > > The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and > advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The Nomcom > then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and > 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria > below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 against > each criteria. > > No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria > was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for > candidates against other criteria were compiled) > > Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection > only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They did > serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who > were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and > whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly > with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. > > 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) > 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the > IGC (8) > 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote > participation (6.5) > 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) > 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives > held by civil society.(8.5) > 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute > constructively to MAG deliberations (9) > 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including > the IGC on issues and progress (8) > > 8. Gender and geographic balance > > All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the > candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an > exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. > > Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate > reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come to > a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment that > the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving > balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more > candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been very > welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under > which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had the > co –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the > Nomcom was being formed. > > I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated > work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess > candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your > behalf. > > > > Ian Peter > > Non voting chair > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Wed Nov 27 14:31:45 2013 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:31:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider In-Reply-To: <1385553497.39194.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1385553497.39194.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: + 1 Nnenna. Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:58:17 -0800 From: nne75 at yahoo.com To: nb at bollow.ch; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider Dear Norbert, As at yesterday night, which was really early this morning, I was still exchanging mails with you. I no longer speak a whole lot on this list for some reasons that we have mentioned at one time or another: the undermining, the attack, the heavy flow of email, some listers' overbearing attitude etc It is true that so many things are wrong with the IGC list at the moment, and we are all aware of it. Maybe we have not had the opportunity to say it openly, but here are a few truths:The IGC is the widest, oldest Civil Society network that has followed the WSIS and the IG issuesWe have a history, of collaboration, of team work and of producing joint actionsWe chose you and Sala. We did, because we felt you two are good, qualified and have the personality to lead usBeing the IGC Coordinator is not a small task, the proof is that not many can/want to step into your shoes.We recognise that IGC Coordinatorship is tasking: time wise, emotionally, physically, bandwidth wise, health wise and even financially.I have been on this list before it was created. When the caucus was hosted elsewhere, before we ever drafted a charter... I'm somehow part of the silent majority and I'm happy to answer the question "why are you no longer contributing to IGC?" if anybody asks me.So on behlalf of some of the silent majority, who still believe in your leadership, in your energy, who appreciate your contribution.. I ask that you reconsider. Thank you in advance. Nnenna @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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Nov 27 14:37:44 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:37:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> <1385562258.95542.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <37A93B61-6FB2-461C-9C84-E239BB506E78@uzh.ch> <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948EAC5031@MFP02.IFLA.lan>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2B9B09@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> +1 thanks to Norbert, Sala, Ian, nomcom, nominees, and all who agreed to be considered. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Anja Kovacs [anja at internetdemocracy.in] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 2:26 PM To: IGC; Stuart Hamilton Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report That's a great slate of candidates! Congratulations to all those selected as nominees, and thank you so much to Ian and the NomCom for their great work on this difficult task. Best regards, Anja On 27 November 2013 20:57, Stuart Hamilton > wrote: Dear Ian and colleagues on the Nomcom Many thanks for your deliberations and hard (and swift) work! Kind regards, Stuart Stuart Hamilton Director of Policy and Advocacy International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands 00 31 70 314 0884 Twitter: @ifladpa From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: 27 November 2013 15:55 To: Internet Governance; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report Cher Ian, Tous, Je voudrais exprimer ma gratitude aux membres du Comité de Nomination, et particulièrement a leur chef non-votant, sur le travail impeccable accompli malgré la cacophonie ambiante et la pression du temps. Je suis honoré de figurer parmi vos choix de potentiels envoyés de la société civile au MAG. Cordialement, Mawaki -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder, DIGILEXIS Consulting http://www.digilexis.com m.chango at digilexis.com twitter.com/digilexis twitter.com/dig_mawaki Skype: digilexis On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:37 PM, William Drake > wrote: +1 Thanks Ian and the nomcom for your work and support. Bill On Nov 27, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Nnenna > wrote: Dear Ian, all Thanks for a good work done under strict conditions in an urgent manner. Considering the fact that a lot of collaboration has gone on in this year's MAG nominations, please permit me to say that it is an achievement. Thank you Ian, thank you nomcom people. Thank you to other could-have-been nominees. Is it possible to being now to gather new issues on the MAG? So that whoever is retained will at least know how best to tackle things. Best regards Nnenna @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS Nnenna Nwakanma Bertrand de la Chappelle Stuart Hamilton Sonigitu Ekpe Matthew Shears Mawaki Chango The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in support of their nominations by filling in the form at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION Anriette Esterhuysen William Drake Izumi Aizu Fatima Cambronero NOMCOM MEMBERS The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were Deirdre Williams Kerry Brown Shaila Mistry David Cake Jefsey Morfin Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. PROCESS Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to encourage more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) Nnenna Nwakanma * Bertrand de la Chappelle* Stuart Hamilton* Sonigitu Ekpe* Matthew Shears* Mawaki Chango* Mishi Choudhary Asif Kabani Rudi Vansnick Imran Ahmed Shah Fouad Bajwa The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before our emails) Anriette Esterhuysen * William Drake * Izumi Aizu * Fatima Cambronero * Lillian Nalwoga In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our recommendations. PROCESS The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The Nomcom then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 against each criteria. No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for candidates against other criteria were compiled) Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They did serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the IGC (8) 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote participation (6.5) 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives held by civil society.(8.5) 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute constructively to MAG deliberations (9) 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including the IGC on issues and progress (8) 8. Gender and geographic balance All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come to a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment that the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been very welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had the co –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the Nomcom was being formed. I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your behalf. Ian Peter Non voting chair ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From devonrb at gmail.com Wed Nov 27 14:49:00 2013 From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:49:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Resignation (was Re: URGENT: Request for input...) In-Reply-To: <5F5E1AFA1E7D4EAD8F0AFCC982ACD7BD@Toshiba> References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> <20131126185935.4b4b265e@quill> <4C31E068-5B06-4652-9B4F-1285422181AF@uzh.ch> <20131127114307.7d9b8b0a@quill> <5F5E1AFA1E7D4EAD8F0AFCC982ACD7BD@Toshiba> Message-ID: Norbert, Although not contributing much to the various debates, and not fulfilling my promises to complete a nomcom report, I have quietly admired your work and the scope of the discussions you have moderated. I have seen where you have tried, unsuccessfully for the most part to calm the disturbing waters of those with personal agendas, thin skins, self importance and just plain arrogance. Through all of that I believe both you and Sala kept the focus of the IGC paramount in our minds, and have judiciously maintained a balance between contending views. For this I say thank you, and wish you all the best for the future. Devon On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Sorry to hear this Norbert - I think the last couple of years have been > very tough for everyone - certainly tough for all of us trying to > contribute positively, and it must have been much tougher for those > attempting to co ordinate. > > I appreciate your decision and the timing. We are within a week of new > elections, and with a number of good candidates putting their name forward, > perhaps a new start with two new co ordinators isn't such a bad thing. An > opportunity perhaps to solve a few serious problems. > > I have had the opportunity to work closely with you on a few issues, and I > do appreciate the perspective you have brought to a number of issues. I do > hope civil society does not lose these altogether. > > Ian Peter > > -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow > > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:43 PM > To: Internet Governance > Subject: [governance] Resignation (was Re: URGENT: Request for input...) > > Dear all > > Hereby I announce my resignation from the role of IGC co-coordinator, > in protest of > > 1) The overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members. > > 2) The specific lack of constructive engagement in relation to recent > attempts at using the IGC statement drafting process (for example, > in the most recent attempt, the only reaction was an attempt to > undermine the stated purpose of the Brazil meeting, and when I tried > to have a constructive conversation about that point, the response > was in fact a personal attack). > > From this criticism of "lack of supportive attitude" I'd like to > explicitly exclude the "silent majority" (there's nothing wrong with > simply lurking) as well as everyone else to whom this criticism does > not apply, most but not all of them civil society people. Actually a > lot of people were seeking to be supportive (I'm sure that you know > who you are! And I hereby thank you!) but faced the same reality as I am > the there are obvious limits on how much can be done in a generally > hostile environment where the hostile attitudes are so deeply ingrained > that the attempt to enforce the posting rules triggers so much > obnoxiousness that the overall level of hostility increases rather than > decreases. > > In fact the number of people who were seeking to be supportive may well > exceed the number of people who together created what I've called "the > overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members". The overall > attitude communicated by a group is not determined by how the majority > feel, but by what is most of the time being said and done, or not. > > As a point of accountability, I'm perfectly willing to answer any > questions that people may want to ask about my actions during the time > that I served as co-coordinator, as well as about the underlying > reasons, to the extent that such questions can be answered without > violating reasonable expectations of confidentiality (e.g. I'm still > not going to answer questions about he "private warnings" process). > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Strange and confusing, indeed. >> The last line of the PR Newswire pieces on this panel (as per the URL >> forwarded initially) reads: "Additional members to be confirmed." And >> all what we hear next is "hurry up and give your blessing to the list >> of names that a handful number of us have _informally_ agreed on." >> One would have hoped that IGC co-cos would provide some feedback of >> the kind Bill just provided as well as the clarification he asked >> for. On the other hand, I can't even count how many times now I have >> read something like "we will set up a proper NomCom process" blah >> blah. It's not as if we've been busy doing some productive >> substantive work in IGC. Informal and ad hoc, that's how we roll >> these days across CS. >> >> For the two names that have been asked for, I'd suggest: >> 1) Milton Mueller >> 2) Your choice >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:10 PM, William Drake >> wrote: >> >> > Hi >> > >> > When Fadi was told last weekend in BA that there had been >> > expressions of discontent on various IG lists about the lack of CS >> > representation, he said ok, send me a name from the community. I >> > didn’t understand this as an ironclad commitment that they’d >> > automatically appoint any name we provided, but rather as an >> > invitation to suggest someone we think would be good (on a panel of >> > CEOs and politicians). Now it’s been decided to demand that two >> > people be empaneled, and a widening search for names is underway. >> > Has anyone been in touch with Fadi or President Ilves to let them >> > know what we’re doing and get their reaction? As the first meeting >> > of the HLP is in two weeks, one imagines the planning is well >> > underway, so it would be good for them to know what to expect, >> > when…. >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Bill >> > >> > >> > On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> > >> > Dear all >> > >> > Here's a quick update... >> > >> > So far, in addition the following have been suggested, some in >> > public postings, some privately: >> > >> > Anju Mangal, Grace Githaiga, Judy Okite, Nnenna Nwakanma, Michael >> > Gurstein, Thomas Lowenhaupt. >> > >> > I have written to each of them to enquire about their willingness to >> > serve on this "Panel". So far, Grace Githaiga, Michael Gurstein, >> > and Thomas Lowenhaupt have replied positively. >> > >> > Please note that the deadline for any additional suggestions is >> > rather soon. >> > >> > In regard to the question that has been raised about process: This >> > is right now an ad hoc process aimed at making --in a way that is >> > coordinated across civil society networks as well as we can in a >> > very tight timeframe-- a demand for increased civil society >> > representation on the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet >> > Cooperation"; this is not directly related to 1net nor to any of >> > the various committees that will need to be formed in view of the >> > Global Meeting in Brazil. I certainly hope that it will be possible >> > to set up a proper NomCom process for those selection tasks, and >> > that we'll find a way to do that in a way that is again coordinated >> > across civil society networks. >> > >> > Greetings, >> > Norbert >> > >> > >> > Am Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:56:57 +0100 >> > schrieb Norbert Bollow : >> > >> > Dear all, >> > >> > there is now an informal coordination group of some kind >> > (tentatively called "steering committee", although I expect that >> > that name will probably be changed) consisting of Anriette >> > Esterhuysen for APC, Jeremy Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for >> > NCSG, Virginia Paque for DIPLO, myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as >> > facilitator. >> > >> > The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society >> > representation on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet >> > Cooperation" organized by ICANN [1]. >> > >> > [1] >> > >> > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level- >> panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html >> > >> > The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional >> > civil society people for this panel. >> > >> > The following names have been suggested so far: >> > >> > Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, >> > Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. >> > >> > In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you >> > wish to be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow >> > Tuesday which is about 24 hours from now.) >> > >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > ********************************************************** >> > 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 (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Devon Blake ICT and Development Consultant 29 Dominica Drive Kgn 5 ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 To be kind, To be helpful, To network *Earthwise ... For Life!* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Wed Nov 27 14:52:17 2013 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:52:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider In-Reply-To: References: <1385553497.39194.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1385581937.42809.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> +1   Shaila Rao Mistry     President StemInstitute Transforming Ideals into Action   President JAYCOMMI Input Technology With A Human Touch   www.jaycopanels.com Tel: 951 738 2000   MWOSB         The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 11:31 AM, Grace Githaiga wrote: + 1 Nnenna. ________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:58:17 -0800 From: nne75 at yahoo.com To: nb at bollow.ch; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider Dear Norbert, As at yesterday night, which was really early this morning, I was still exchanging mails with you. I no longer speak a whole lot on this list for some reasons that we have mentioned at one time or another: the undermining, the attack, the heavy flow of email, some listers' overbearing attitude etc It is true that so many things are wrong with the IGC list at the moment, and we are all aware of it.  Maybe we have not had the opportunity to say it openly, but here are a few truths: 1. The IGC is the widest, oldest Civil Society network that has followed the WSIS and the IG issues 2. We have a history, of collaboration, of team work and of producing joint actions 3. We chose you and Sala. We did, because we felt you two  are good, qualified and  have the personality to lead us 4. Being the IGC Coordinator is not a small task, the proof is that not many can/want to step into your shoes. 5. We recognise that IGC Coordinatorship is tasking: time wise, emotionally, physically, bandwidth wise, health wise and even financially. I have been on this list before it was created.  When the caucus was hosted elsewhere, before we ever drafted a charter... I'm somehow part of the silent majority and I'm happy to answer the question "why are you no longer contributing to IGC?" if anybody asks me. So on behlalf of some of the silent majority, who still believe in your leadership, in your energy, who appreciate your contribution.. I ask that you reconsider. Thank you in advance. Nnenna   @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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Anriette at apc.org Wed Nov 27 15:03:55 2013 From: Anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 21:03:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider Message-ID: Agree.  Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Grace Githaiga Date: To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] Request to reconsider + 1 Nnenna. Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:58:17 -0800 From: nne75 at yahoo.com To: nb at bollow.ch; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider Dear Norbert, As at yesterday night, which was really early this morning, I was still exchanging mails with you. I no longer speak a whole lot on this list for some reasons that we have mentioned at one time or another: the undermining, the attack, the heavy flow of email, some listers' overbearing attitude etc It is true that so many things are wrong with the IGC list at the moment, and we are all aware of it.  Maybe we have not had the opportunity to say it openly, but here are a few truths: The IGC is the widest, oldest Civil Society network that has followed the WSIS and the IG issues We have a history, of collaboration, of team work and of producing joint actions We chose you and Sala. We did, because we felt you two  are good, qualified and  have the personality to lead us Being the IGC Coordinator is not a small task, the proof is that not many can/want to step into your shoes. We recognise that IGC Coordinatorship is tasking: time wise, emotionally, physically, bandwidth wise, health wise and even financially. I have been on this list before it was created.  When the caucus was hosted elsewhere, before we ever drafted a charter... I'm somehow part of the silent majority and I'm happy to answer the question "why are you no longer contributing to IGC?" if anybody asks me. So on behlalf of some of the silent majority, who still believe in your leadership, in your energy, who appreciate your contribution.. I ask that you reconsider. Thank you in advance. Nnenna   @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 mazzone at ebu.ch Wed Nov 27 15:29:15 2013 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:29:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I also recognise myself in the silent majority described as well by Ninenna and i fully support her invitation. Giacomo Ps: you see ? For once you've obliged me to get out from the silence... From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:Anriette at apc.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 09:03 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Grace Githaiga Subject: RE: [governance] Request to reconsider Agree. Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Grace Githaiga Date: To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] Request to reconsider + 1 Nnenna. ________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:58:17 -0800 From: nne75 at yahoo.com To: nb at bollow.ch; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider Dear Norbert, As at yesterday night, which was really early this morning, I was still exchanging mails with you. I no longer speak a whole lot on this list for some reasons that we have mentioned at one time or another: the undermining, the attack, the heavy flow of email, some listers' overbearing attitude etc It is true that so many things are wrong with the IGC list at the moment, and we are all aware of it. Maybe we have not had the opportunity to say it openly, but here are a few truths: 1. The IGC is the widest, oldest Civil Society network that has followed the WSIS and the IG issues 2. We have a history, of collaboration, of team work and of producing joint actions 3. We chose you and Sala. We did, because we felt you two are good, qualified and have the personality to lead us 4. Being the IGC Coordinator is not a small task, the proof is that not many can/want to step into your shoes. 5. We recognise that IGC Coordinatorship is tasking: time wise, emotionally, physically, bandwidth wise, health wise and even financially. I have been on this list before it was created. When the caucus was hosted elsewhere, before we ever drafted a charter... I'm somehow part of the silent majority and I'm happy to answer the question "why are you no longer contributing to IGC?" if anybody asks me. So on behlalf of some of the silent majority, who still believe in your leadership, in your energy, who appreciate your contribution.. I ask that you reconsider. Thank you in advance. Nnenna @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 16:55:30 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:55:30 -0800 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Internet Justice: A Meme Whose Time Has Come Message-ID: <04ed01ceebbb$645b7490$2d125db0$@gmail.com> Perhaps this may be of interest http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/internet-justice-a-meme-whose-time- has-come/ http://tinyurl.com/lwuyvdk 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 tisrael at cippic.ca Wed Nov 27 17:25:36 2013 From: tisrael at cippic.ca (Tamir Israel) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:25:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52967160.40201@cippic.ca> Yes. Please reconsider. Best, Tamir > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:58:17 -0800 > From: nne75 at yahoo.com > To: nb at bollow.ch; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider > > Dear Norbert, > > As at yesterday night, which was really early this morning, I was > still exchanging mails with you. I no longer speak a whole lot on this > list for some reasons that we have mentioned at one time or another: > the undermining, the attack, the heavy flow of email, some listers' > overbearing attitude etc > > It is true that so many things are wrong with the IGC list at the > moment, and we are all aware of it. Maybe we have not had the > opportunity to say it openly, but here are a few truths: > > 1. The IGC is the widest, oldest Civil Society network that has > followed the WSIS and the IG issues > 2. We have a history, of collaboration, of team work and of producing > joint actions > 3. We chose you and Sala. We did, because we felt you two are good, > qualified and have the personality to lead us > 4. Being the IGC Coordinator is not a small task, the proof is that > not many can/want to step into your shoes. > 5. We recognise that IGC Coordinatorship is tasking: time wise, > emotionally, physically, bandwidth wise, health wise and even > financially. > > I have been on this list before it was created. When the caucus was > hosted elsewhere, before we ever drafted a charter... > > I'm somehow part of the silent majority and I'm happy to answer the > question "why are you no longer contributing to IGC?" if anybody asks me. > So on behlalf of some of the silent majority, who still believe in > your leadership, in your energy, who appreciate your contribution.. > > I ask that you reconsider. > > Thank you in advance. > > Nnenna > > @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the system > manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been > swept by the mailgateway > ************************************************** * > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Nov 27 18:07:35 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 04:07:35 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2B9B09@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> <1385562258.95542.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <37A93B61-6FB2-461C-9C84-E239BB506E78@uzh.ch> <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948EAC5031@MFP02.IFLA.lan> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2B9B09@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Perfect list of candidates for the MAG! and yes, the names for continued representation of CS on the MAG is also wonderful. Wish you all success! Take care On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > +1 thanks to Norbert, Sala, Ian, nomcom, nominees, and all who agreed to be > considered. > > Lee > > ________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Anja Kovacs > [anja at internetdemocracy.in] > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 2:26 PM > To: IGC; Stuart Hamilton > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report > > That's a great slate of candidates! Congratulations to all those selected as > nominees, and thank you so much to Ian and the NomCom for their great work > on this difficult task. > > Best regards, > Anja > > > On 27 November 2013 20:57, Stuart Hamilton wrote: >> >> Dear Ian and colleagues on the Nomcom >> >> >> >> Many thanks for your deliberations and hard (and swift) work! >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> Stuart >> >> >> >> >> >> Stuart Hamilton >> >> Director of Policy and Advocacy >> >> International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) >> >> P.O. Box 95312 >> 2509 CH The Hague >> Netherlands >> >> >> >> 00 31 70 314 0884 >> >> >> >> Twitter: @ifladpa >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango >> Sent: 27 November 2013 15:55 >> To: Internet Governance; Ian Peter >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report >> >> >> >> Cher Ian, Tous, >> >> >> >> Je voudrais exprimer ma gratitude aux membres du Comité de Nomination, et >> particulièrement a leur chef non-votant, sur le travail impeccable accompli >> malgré la cacophonie ambiante et la pression du temps. Je suis honoré de >> figurer parmi vos choix de potentiels envoyés de la société civile au MAG. >> >> >> >> Cordialement, >> >> >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- >> Mawaki Chango, PhD >> >> Founder, DIGILEXIS Consulting >> >> http://www.digilexis.com >> >> m.chango at digilexis.com >> >> twitter.com/digilexis >> twitter.com/dig_mawaki >> >> Skype: digilexis >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:37 PM, William Drake >> wrote: >> >> +1 Thanks Ian and the nomcom for your work and support. >> >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 27, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Nnenna wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Ian, all >> >> >> >> Thanks for a good work done under strict conditions in an urgent manner. >> >> Considering the fact that a lot of collaboration has gone on in this >> year's MAG nominations, please permit me to say that it is an achievement. >> >> >> >> Thank you Ian, thank you nomcom people. Thank you to other could-have-been >> nominees. >> >> >> >> Is it possible to being now to gather new issues on the MAG? So that >> whoever is retained will at least know how best to tackle things. >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Ian Peter >> wrote: >> >> >> >> I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by >> Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder >> Advisory Group (MAG). >> >> >> >> >> >> RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS >> >> >> >> Nnenna Nwakanma >> >> Bertrand de la Chappelle >> >> Stuart Hamilton >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe >> >> Matthew Shears >> >> Mawaki Chango >> >> >> >> The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in >> support of their nominations by filling in the form at >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies >> should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight >> timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION >> >> >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> William Drake >> Izumi Aizu >> Fatima Cambronero >> >> >> >> >> >> NOMCOM MEMBERS >> >> >> >> The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection >> process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were >> >> Deirdre Williams >> >> Kerry Brown >> >> Shaila Mistry >> >> David Cake >> >> Jefsey Morfin >> >> >> >> Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. >> >> >> >> PROCESS >> >> Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for >> nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to encourage >> more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive >> nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. >> >> The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one >> nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) >> >> Nnenna Nwakanma * >> >> Bertrand de la Chappelle* >> >> Stuart Hamilton* >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe* >> >> Matthew Shears* >> >> Mawaki Chango* >> >> Mishi Choudhary >> Asif Kabani >> Rudi Vansnick >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> >> >> The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, >> asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for endorsement >> by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before our emails) >> >> >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen * >> William Drake * >> Izumi Aizu * >> Fatima Cambronero * >> Lillian Nalwoga >> >> >> >> In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our >> recommendations. >> >> >> >> PROCESS >> >> >> >> The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and >> advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The Nomcom >> then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and >> 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria >> below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 against >> each criteria. >> >> No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria >> was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for >> candidates against other criteria were compiled) >> >> Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection >> only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They did >> serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who were >> not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and whose >> credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly with >> intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. >> >> 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) >> 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the >> IGC (8) >> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote >> participation (6.5) >> 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) >> 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives >> held by civil society.(8.5) >> 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute >> constructively to MAG deliberations (9) >> 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including >> the IGC on issues and progress (8) >> >> 8. Gender and geographic balance >> >> All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the >> candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an >> exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. >> >> Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate >> reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come to >> a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment that >> the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving >> balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more >> candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been very >> welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under >> which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had the co >> –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the >> Nomcom was being formed. >> >> I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated >> work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess >> candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your >> behalf. >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> Non voting chair >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 devonrb at gmail.com Wed Nov 27 18:19:35 2013 From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:19:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider In-Reply-To: <52967160.40201@cippic.ca> References: <52967160.40201@cippic.ca> Message-ID: That is what I should be saying, please reconsider. On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Tamir Israel wrote: > Yes. Please reconsider. > > Best, > Tamir > > > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:58:17 -0800 > From: nne75 at yahoo.com > To: nb at bollow.ch; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider > > Dear Norbert, > > As at yesterday night, which was really early this morning, I was still > exchanging mails with you. I no longer speak a whole lot on this list for > some reasons that we have mentioned at one time or another: the > undermining, the attack, the heavy flow of email, some listers' overbearing > attitude etc > > It is true that so many things are wrong with the IGC list at the > moment, and we are all aware of it. Maybe we have not had the opportunity > to say it openly, but here are a few truths: > > 1. The IGC is the widest, oldest Civil Society network that has > followed the WSIS and the IG issues > 2. We have a history, of collaboration, of team work and of producing > joint actions > 3. We chose you and Sala. We did, because we felt you two are good, > qualified and have the personality to lead us > 4. Being the IGC Coordinator is not a small task, the proof is that > not many can/want to step into your shoes. > 5. We recognise that IGC Coordinatorship is tasking: time wise, > emotionally, physically, bandwidth wise, health wise and even financially. > > I have been on this list before it was created. When the caucus was > hosted elsewhere, before we ever drafted a charter... > > I'm somehow part of the silent majority and I'm happy to answer the > question "why are you no longer contributing to IGC?" if anybody asks me. > So on behlalf of some of the silent majority, who still believe in your > leadership, in your energy, who appreciate your contribution.. > > I ask that you reconsider. > > Thank you in advance. > > Nnenna > > @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > ------------------------------ > > > > > * ************************************************** This email and any > files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use > of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have > received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This > footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the > mailgateway ************************************************** * > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Devon Blake ICT and Development Consultant 29 Dominica Drive Kgn 5 ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 To be kind, To be helpful, To network *Earthwise ... For Life!* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Wed Nov 27 20:28:17 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:28:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider In-Reply-To: References: <52967160.40201@cippic.ca> Message-ID: Hello Norbert, I understand how you are feeling now, please kindly flush the pains behind. When the going looks tough, success is by the side. Go grab this success to place your name on the "Golden Plaque" of IGC. You should reconsider and lead us to the Promise Field. My great fellow accept our offer and esteemed regards. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Nov 28, 2013 12:19 AM, "Devon Blake" wrote: > That is what I should be saying, please reconsider. > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Tamir Israel wrote: > >> Yes. Please reconsider. >> >> Best, >> Tamir >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:58:17 -0800 >> From: nne75 at yahoo.com >> To: nb at bollow.ch; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider >> >> Dear Norbert, >> >> As at yesterday night, which was really early this morning, I was still >> exchanging mails with you. I no longer speak a whole lot on this list for >> some reasons that we have mentioned at one time or another: the >> undermining, the attack, the heavy flow of email, some listers' overbearing >> attitude etc >> >> It is true that so many things are wrong with the IGC list at the >> moment, and we are all aware of it. Maybe we have not had the opportunity >> to say it openly, but here are a few truths: >> >> 1. The IGC is the widest, oldest Civil Society network that has >> followed the WSIS and the IG issues >> 2. We have a history, of collaboration, of team work and of producing >> joint actions >> 3. We chose you and Sala. We did, because we felt you two are good, >> qualified and have the personality to lead us >> 4. Being the IGC Coordinator is not a small task, the proof is that >> not many can/want to step into your shoes. >> 5. We recognise that IGC Coordinatorship is tasking: time wise, >> emotionally, physically, bandwidth wise, health wise and even financially. >> >> I have been on this list before it was created. When the caucus was >> hosted elsewhere, before we ever drafted a charter... >> >> I'm somehow part of the silent majority and I'm happy to answer the >> question "why are you no longer contributing to IGC?" if anybody asks me. >> So on behlalf of some of the silent majority, who still believe in your >> leadership, in your energy, who appreciate your contribution.. >> >> I ask that you reconsider. >> >> Thank you in advance. >> >> Nnenna >> >> @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> * ************************************************** This email and any >> files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use >> of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have >> received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This >> footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the >> mailgateway ************************************************** * >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Devon Blake > ICT and Development Consultant > 29 Dominica Drive > Kgn 5 > ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 > > To be kind, To be helpful, To network > *Earthwise ... For Life!* > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 27 20:40:07 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:40:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> <1385562258.95542.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <37A93B61-6FB2-461C-9C84-E239BB506E78@uzh.ch> <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948EAC5031@MFP02.IFLA.lan> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2B9B09@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: The Chair, NomCom Members and Great Fellows, Congratulations for the beautiful activities going on. The list needs to foster greater collaborations to see what can be achieved. Knowledge with understanding is the key to connecting different values, sides, cultures, and interest. Lets strengthen the existing structures of Internet Governance. Once again congratulations to ALL. Best. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Nov 28, 2013 12:07 AM, "Fouad Bajwa" wrote: > Perfect list of candidates for the MAG! and yes, the names for > continued representation of CS on the MAG is also wonderful. > > Wish you all success! > > Take care > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > +1 thanks to Norbert, Sala, Ian, nomcom, nominees, and all who agreed to > be > > considered. > > > > Lee > > > > ________________________________ > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Anja Kovacs > > [anja at internetdemocracy.in] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 2:26 PM > > To: IGC; Stuart Hamilton > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report > > > > That's a great slate of candidates! Congratulations to all those > selected as > > nominees, and thank you so much to Ian and the NomCom for their great > work > > on this difficult task. > > > > Best regards, > > Anja > > > > > > On 27 November 2013 20:57, Stuart Hamilton > wrote: > >> > >> Dear Ian and colleagues on the Nomcom > >> > >> > >> > >> Many thanks for your deliberations and hard (and swift) work! > >> > >> > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> > >> > >> > >> Stuart > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Stuart Hamilton > >> > >> Director of Policy and Advocacy > >> > >> International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) > >> > >> P.O. Box 95312 > >> 2509 CH The Hague > >> Netherlands > >> > >> > >> > >> 00 31 70 314 0884 > >> > >> > >> > >> Twitter: @ifladpa > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki > Chango > >> Sent: 27 November 2013 15:55 > >> To: Internet Governance; Ian Peter > >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report > >> > >> > >> > >> Cher Ian, Tous, > >> > >> > >> > >> Je voudrais exprimer ma gratitude aux membres du Comité de Nomination, > et > >> particulièrement a leur chef non-votant, sur le travail impeccable > accompli > >> malgré la cacophonie ambiante et la pression du temps. Je suis honoré de > >> figurer parmi vos choix de potentiels envoyés de la société civile au > MAG. > >> > >> > >> > >> Cordialement, > >> > >> > >> > >> Mawaki > >> > >> > >> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > >> Mawaki Chango, PhD > >> > >> Founder, DIGILEXIS Consulting > >> > >> http://www.digilexis.com > >> > >> m.chango at digilexis.com > >> > >> twitter.com/digilexis > >> twitter.com/dig_mawaki > >> > >> Skype: digilexis > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:37 PM, William Drake > >> wrote: > >> > >> +1 Thanks Ian and the nomcom for your work and support. > >> > >> > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Nov 27, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Nnenna wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Dear Ian, all > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks for a good work done under strict conditions in an urgent manner. > >> > >> Considering the fact that a lot of collaboration has gone on in this > >> year's MAG nominations, please permit me to say that it is an > achievement. > >> > >> > >> > >> Thank you Ian, thank you nomcom people. Thank you to other > could-have-been > >> nominees. > >> > >> > >> > >> Is it possible to being now to gather new issues on the MAG? So that > >> whoever is retained will at least know how best to tackle things. > >> > >> > >> > >> Best regards > >> > >> > >> > >> Nnenna > >> > >> > >> > >> @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Ian Peter > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by > >> Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF > Multistakeholder > >> Advisory Group (MAG). > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS > >> > >> > >> > >> Nnenna Nwakanma > >> > >> Bertrand de la Chappelle > >> > >> Stuart Hamilton > >> > >> Sonigitu Ekpe > >> > >> Matthew Shears > >> > >> Mawaki Chango > >> > >> > >> > >> The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in > >> support of their nominations by filling in the form at > >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. > Copies > >> should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight > >> timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION > >> > >> > >> > >> Anriette Esterhuysen > >> William Drake > >> Izumi Aizu > >> Fatima Cambronero > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> NOMCOM MEMBERS > >> > >> > >> > >> The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection > >> process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were > >> > >> Deirdre Williams > >> > >> Kerry Brown > >> > >> Shaila Mistry > >> > >> David Cake > >> > >> Jefsey Morfin > >> > >> > >> > >> Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. > >> > >> > >> > >> PROCESS > >> > >> Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for > >> nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to > encourage > >> more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive > >> nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. > >> > >> The following nominations were received within the advertised period > (one > >> nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) > >> > >> Nnenna Nwakanma * > >> > >> Bertrand de la Chappelle* > >> > >> Stuart Hamilton* > >> > >> Sonigitu Ekpe* > >> > >> Matthew Shears* > >> > >> Mawaki Chango* > >> > >> Mishi Choudhary > >> Asif Kabani > >> Rudi Vansnick > >> Imran Ahmed Shah > >> Fouad Bajwa > >> > >> > >> > >> The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, > >> asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for > endorsement > >> by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before our emails) > >> > >> > >> > >> Anriette Esterhuysen * > >> William Drake * > >> Izumi Aizu * > >> Fatima Cambronero * > >> Lillian Nalwoga > >> > >> > >> > >> In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our > >> recommendations. > >> > >> > >> > >> PROCESS > >> > >> > >> > >> The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and > >> advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The > Nomcom > >> then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 > and > >> 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria > >> below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 > against > >> each criteria. > >> > >> No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria > >> was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores > for > >> candidates against other criteria were compiled) > >> > >> Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection > >> only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They > did > >> serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who > were > >> not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and > whose > >> credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly with > >> intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. > >> > >> 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) > >> 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including > the > >> IGC (8) > >> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote > >> participation (6.5) > >> 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) > >> 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and > perspectives > >> held by civil society.(8.5) > >> 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute > >> constructively to MAG deliberations (9) > >> 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks > including > >> the IGC on issues and progress (8) > >> > >> 8. Gender and geographic balance > >> > >> All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the > >> candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an > >> exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. > >> > >> Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate > >> reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to > come to > >> a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment > that > >> the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving > >> balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more > >> candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been > very > >> welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe > under > >> which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had > the co > >> –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the > >> Nomcom was being formed. > >> > >> I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated > >> work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess > >> candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your > >> behalf. > >> > >> > >> > >> Ian Peter > >> > >> Non voting chair > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > The Internet Democracy Project > > > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joy at apc.org Wed Nov 27 22:06:18 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:06:18 +1300 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> <1385562258.95542.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <37A93B61-6FB2-461C-9C84-E239BB506E78@uzh.ch> <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948EAC5031@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: <5296B32A.6080703@apc.org> yes, totally agree - and thanks to the NomCom for this work Best Joy On 28/11/2013 8:26 a.m., Anja Kovacs wrote: > That's a great slate of candidates! Congratulations to all those > selected as nominees, and thank you so much to Ian and the NomCom for > their great work on this difficult task. > > Best regards, > Anja > > > On 27 November 2013 20:57, Stuart Hamilton > wrote: > > Dear Ian and colleagues on the Nomcom > > > > Many thanks for your deliberations and hard (and swift) work! > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Stuart > > > > > > Stuart Hamilton > > Director of Policy and Advocacy > > International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions > (IFLA) > > P.O. Box 95312 > 2509 CH The Hague > Netherlands > > > > 00 31 70 314 0884 > > > > Twitter: @ifladpa > > > > > > > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > ] *On Behalf Of > *Mawaki Chango > *Sent:* 27 November 2013 15:55 > *To:* Internet Governance; Ian Peter > *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report > > > > Cher Ian, Tous, > > > > Je voudrais exprimer ma gratitude aux membres du Comité de > Nomination, et particulièrement a leur chef non-votant, sur le > travail impeccable accompli malgré la cacophonie ambiante et la > pression du temps. Je suis honoré de figurer parmi vos choix de > potentiels envoyés de la société civile au MAG. > > > > Cordialement, > > > > Mawaki > > > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > Mawaki Chango, PhD > > Founder, DIGILEXIS Consulting > > http://www.digilexis.com > > m.chango at digilexis.com > > twitter.com/digilexis > twitter.com/dig_mawaki > > Skype: digilexis > > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:37 PM, William Drake > > wrote: > > +1 Thanks Ian and the nomcom for your work and support. > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Nnenna > wrote: > > > > Dear Ian, all > > > > Thanks for a good work done under strict conditions in an urgent > manner. > > Considering the fact that a lot of collaboration has gone on in > this year's MAG nominations, please permit me to say that it is an > achievement. > > > > Thank you Ian, thank you nomcom people. Thank you to other > could-have-been nominees. > > > > Is it possible to being now to gather new issues on the MAG? So > that whoever is retained will at least know how best to tackle things. > > > > Best regards > > > > Nnenna > > > > @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > > > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Ian Peter > > wrote: > > > > I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom > formed by Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF > Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). > > > > > > RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma > > Bertrand de la Chappelle > > Stuart Hamilton > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Matthew Shears > > Mawaki Chango > > > > The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information > in support of their nominations by filling in the form at > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. > Copies should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given > the tight timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the > IGF Secretariat > > > > > > > > CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen > William Drake > Izumi Aizu > Fatima Cambronero > > > > > > NOMCOM MEMBERS > > > > The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random > selection process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were > > Deirdre Williams > > Kerry Brown > > Shaila Mistry > > David Cake > > Jefsey Morfin > > > > Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. > > > > PROCESS > > Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for > nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to > encourage more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue > to receive nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. > > The following nominations were received within the advertised > period (one nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted > by the Nomcom) > > Nnenna Nwakanma * > > Bertrand de la Chappelle* > > Stuart Hamilton* > > Sonigitu Ekpe* > > Matthew Shears* > > Mawaki Chango* > > Mishi Choudhary > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > > > > The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the > MAG, asking whether they would like their names to be put forward > for endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from > (some before our emails) > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen * > William Drake * > Izumi Aizu * > Fatima Cambronero * > Lillian Nalwoga > > > > In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are > our recommendations. > > > > PROCESS > > > > The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after > discussion, and advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are > mentioned below. The Nomcom then weighted all criteria in > importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and 10 to each > criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria > below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 > against each criteria. > > No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this > criteria was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted > average scores for candidates against other criteria were compiled) > > Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to > selection only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight > time frames. They did serve to make clear some candidates who were > clearly favoured, some who were not, but did leave a group in the > middle whose scores were close and whose credentials for inclusion > were then compared further, particularly with intentions to > achieve better geographic and gender balance. > > 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) > 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks > including the IGC (8) > 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote > participation (6.5) > 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) > 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and > perspectives > held by civil society.(8.5) > 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to > contribute constructively to MAG deliberations (9) > 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks > including the IGC on issues and progress (8) > > 8. Gender and geographic balance > > All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the > candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all > candidates, an exceptionally good result given the tight > timeframes involved. > > Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final > slate reflecting as best possible some natural differences of > emphasis to come to a mutual recommendation. Several members > expressed some disappointment that the range and communicated > attributes of those nominated made achieving balance very > difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more > candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have > been very welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very > limited timeframe under which we operated – however, it would have > been even more limited had the co –coordinators not taken the > initiative to call for candidates while the Nomcom was being formed. > > I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their > dedicated work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria > and assess candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did > good work on your behalf. > > > > Ian Peter > > Non voting chair > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Nov 27 22:09:49 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 01:09:49 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> <1385562258.95542.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <37A93B61-6FB2-461C-9C84-E239BB506E78@uzh.ch> <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948EAC5031@MFP02.IFLA.lan> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2B9B09@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Congratulations! Excellent job and excellent choices! Lots of hope. Best Joana On 27 Nov 2013 23:40, "Sonigitu Ekpe" wrote: > The Chair, NomCom Members and Great Fellows, > > Congratulations for the beautiful activities going on. > > The list needs to foster greater collaborations to see what can be > achieved. > > Knowledge with understanding is the key to connecting different values, > sides, cultures, and interest. Lets strengthen the existing structures of > Internet Governance. > > Once again congratulations to ALL. > > Best. > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > On Nov 28, 2013 12:07 AM, "Fouad Bajwa" wrote: > >> Perfect list of candidates for the MAG! and yes, the names for >> continued representation of CS on the MAG is also wonderful. >> >> Wish you all success! >> >> Take care >> >> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Lee W McKnight >> wrote: >> > +1 thanks to Norbert, Sala, Ian, nomcom, nominees, and all who agreed >> to be >> > considered. >> > >> > Lee >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Anja Kovacs >> > [anja at internetdemocracy.in] >> > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 2:26 PM >> > To: IGC; Stuart Hamilton >> > >> > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report >> > >> > That's a great slate of candidates! Congratulations to all those >> selected as >> > nominees, and thank you so much to Ian and the NomCom for their great >> work >> > on this difficult task. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Anja >> > >> > >> > On 27 November 2013 20:57, Stuart Hamilton >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Ian and colleagues on the Nomcom >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Many thanks for your deliberations and hard (and swift) work! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Stuart >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Stuart Hamilton >> >> >> >> Director of Policy and Advocacy >> >> >> >> International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions >> (IFLA) >> >> >> >> P.O. Box 95312 >> >> 2509 CH The Hague >> >> Netherlands >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 00 31 70 314 0884 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Twitter: @ifladpa >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki >> Chango >> >> Sent: 27 November 2013 15:55 >> >> To: Internet Governance; Ian Peter >> >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Cher Ian, Tous, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Je voudrais exprimer ma gratitude aux membres du Comité de Nomination, >> et >> >> particulièrement a leur chef non-votant, sur le travail impeccable >> accompli >> >> malgré la cacophonie ambiante et la pression du temps. Je suis honoré >> de >> >> figurer parmi vos choix de potentiels envoyés de la société civile au >> MAG. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Cordialement, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> >> >> >> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- >> >> Mawaki Chango, PhD >> >> >> >> Founder, DIGILEXIS Consulting >> >> >> >> http://www.digilexis.com >> >> >> >> m.chango at digilexis.com >> >> >> >> twitter.com/digilexis >> >> twitter.com/dig_mawaki >> >> >> >> Skype: digilexis >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:37 PM, William Drake >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> +1 Thanks Ian and the nomcom for your work and support. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 27, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Nnenna wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Ian, all >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks for a good work done under strict conditions in an urgent >> manner. >> >> >> >> Considering the fact that a lot of collaboration has gone on in this >> >> year's MAG nominations, please permit me to say that it is an >> achievement. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you Ian, thank you nomcom people. Thank you to other >> could-have-been >> >> nominees. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Is it possible to being now to gather new issues on the MAG? So that >> >> whoever is retained will at least know how best to tackle things. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Ian Peter >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by >> >> Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF >> Multistakeholder >> >> Advisory Group (MAG). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Nnenna Nwakanma >> >> >> >> Bertrand de la Chappelle >> >> >> >> Stuart Hamilton >> >> >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe >> >> >> >> Matthew Shears >> >> >> >> Mawaki Chango >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in >> >> support of their nominations by filling in the form at >> >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. >> Copies >> >> should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight >> >> timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF >> Secretariat >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> >> William Drake >> >> Izumi Aizu >> >> Fatima Cambronero >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> NOMCOM MEMBERS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection >> >> process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were >> >> >> >> Deirdre Williams >> >> >> >> Kerry Brown >> >> >> >> Shaila Mistry >> >> >> >> David Cake >> >> >> >> Jefsey Morfin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> PROCESS >> >> >> >> Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for >> >> nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to >> encourage >> >> more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive >> >> nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. >> >> >> >> The following nominations were received within the advertised period >> (one >> >> nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) >> >> >> >> Nnenna Nwakanma * >> >> >> >> Bertrand de la Chappelle* >> >> >> >> Stuart Hamilton* >> >> >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe* >> >> >> >> Matthew Shears* >> >> >> >> Mawaki Chango* >> >> >> >> Mishi Choudhary >> >> Asif Kabani >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, >> >> asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for >> endorsement >> >> by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before our >> emails) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen * >> >> William Drake * >> >> Izumi Aizu * >> >> Fatima Cambronero * >> >> Lillian Nalwoga >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our >> >> recommendations. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> PROCESS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and >> >> advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The >> Nomcom >> >> then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between >> 1 and >> >> 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria >> >> below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 >> against >> >> each criteria. >> >> >> >> No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this >> criteria >> >> was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores >> for >> >> candidates against other criteria were compiled) >> >> >> >> Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection >> >> only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. >> They did >> >> serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some >> who were >> >> not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and >> whose >> >> credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly with >> >> intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. >> >> >> >> 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) >> >> 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including >> the >> >> IGC (8) >> >> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote >> >> participation (6.5) >> >> 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) >> >> 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and >> perspectives >> >> held by civil society.(8.5) >> >> 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute >> >> constructively to MAG deliberations (9) >> >> 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks >> including >> >> the IGC on issues and progress (8) >> >> >> >> 8. Gender and geographic balance >> >> >> >> All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the >> >> candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, >> an >> >> exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. >> >> >> >> Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate >> >> reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to >> come to >> >> a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment >> that >> >> the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving >> >> balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and >> more >> >> candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been >> very >> >> welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe >> under >> >> which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had >> the co >> >> –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the >> >> Nomcom was being formed. >> >> >> >> I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated >> >> work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess >> >> candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your >> >> behalf. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> Non voting chair >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Dr. Anja Kovacs >> > The Internet Democracy Project >> > >> > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> > www.internetdemocracy.in >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Nov 27 23:11:34 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:11:34 +1100 Subject: [governance] HLLMs Message-ID: Can anyone advise whether the High Level Leaders Group mentioned in the Brazilian media release is envisaged to be the same high level panel advised recently to meet in London in a couple of weeks time or something entirely different? Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Thu Nov 28 01:23:07 2013 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:23:07 -0600 Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider In-Reply-To: References: <52967160.40201@cippic.ca> Message-ID: +1 Starting from Nnenna and down... There are too many considerations to note, but there are numerous reasons we are sometimes observing, and not actively participating. Please do reconsider. Ginger On 27 November 2013 19:28, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > Hello Norbert, > > I understand how you are feeling now, please kindly flush the pains behind. > > When the going looks tough, success is by the side. Go grab this success > to place your name on the "Golden Plaque" of IGC. > > You should reconsider and lead us to the Promise Field. > > My great fellow accept our offer and esteemed regards. > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > On Nov 28, 2013 12:19 AM, "Devon Blake" wrote: > >> That is what I should be saying, please reconsider. >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Tamir Israel wrote: >> >>> Yes. Please reconsider. >>> >>> Best, >>> Tamir >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:58:17 -0800 >>> From: nne75 at yahoo.com >>> To: nb at bollow.ch; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider >>> >>> Dear Norbert, >>> >>> As at yesterday night, which was really early this morning, I was >>> still exchanging mails with you. I no longer speak a whole lot on this list >>> for some reasons that we have mentioned at one time or another: the >>> undermining, the attack, the heavy flow of email, some listers' overbearing >>> attitude etc >>> >>> It is true that so many things are wrong with the IGC list at the >>> moment, and we are all aware of it. Maybe we have not had the opportunity >>> to say it openly, but here are a few truths: >>> >>> 1. The IGC is the widest, oldest Civil Society network that has >>> followed the WSIS and the IG issues >>> 2. We have a history, of collaboration, of team work and of >>> producing joint actions >>> 3. We chose you and Sala. We did, because we felt you two are good, >>> qualified and have the personality to lead us >>> 4. Being the IGC Coordinator is not a small task, the proof is that >>> not many can/want to step into your shoes. >>> 5. We recognise that IGC Coordinatorship is tasking: time wise, >>> emotionally, physically, bandwidth wise, health wise and even financially. >>> >>> I have been on this list before it was created. When the caucus was >>> hosted elsewhere, before we ever drafted a charter... >>> >>> I'm somehow part of the silent majority and I'm happy to answer the >>> question "why are you no longer contributing to IGC?" if anybody asks me. >>> So on behlalf of some of the silent majority, who still believe in your >>> leadership, in your energy, who appreciate your contribution.. >>> >>> I ask that you reconsider. >>> >>> Thank you in advance. >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> * ************************************************** This email and any >>> files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use >>> of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have >>> received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This >>> footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the >>> mailgateway ************************************************** * >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Devon Blake >> ICT and Development Consultant >> 29 Dominica Drive >> Kgn 5 >> ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 >> >> To be kind, To be helpful, To network >> *Earthwise ... For Life!* >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 28 01:29:23 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:59:23 +0530 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <528DE139.7000309@cdt.org> <528E291C.2030306@gold.ac.uk> <2CDDB11B-BA24-480B-BAD1-2A759DCE0FC4@apc.org> <-562132103237437841@unknownmsgid> <52901559.6050508@itforchange.net> <7511B518-ED0C-4738-98E3-96E77C013102@uzh.ch> <5290A642.4010302@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <52934E0A.2060403@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <5296E2C3.5050502@itforchange.net> Wolfgang, This is a useful dialogue.... responses below. On Monday 25 November 2013 09:12 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > thanks for you reply and the reference to the COE background paper. > > Indeed, there are numerous governments (also OECD and COE member states) which still believe that the "Status Quo Plus" proposal from the WGIG (that is an intergovernmental Internet council) on top of an hierarchy is the answer to all Internet problems. I disagree. This did not work in 2005. And it will not work in 2014. > > As I explained in my final statement before the Council of Europe I argued that the adoption of the COE Internet principles declaration by governments can be only the first step. Such a set of principles has to be "globalized" and "multistakeholderized" to be effective. Did you ask for CoE principles to be 'globalised'!? Please see Carlos's intervention in this regard during the WGEC meeting. Developing countries - civil society and governments - resent such a procedure - of Europe making the principles, and then 'globalising' them. Isnt this undemocratic and unfair. And at the same time, you do not agree to a 'similar' global procedure of Internet principles and policies development with all countries involved... On what basis. This is what we are talking about here. > > My approach is that today´s intergovernmental treaty system (and relevant intergovernmental mechanisms) are meanwhile embedded into a multistakeholder environment. Agree. Things take shape, and rise from this multistakeholder environment and then, if and when, public policy decisions are needed, governments take them. I understand that this is what you are saying below. Am I right? > This does NOT lead to the disapperance of the intergovenrmental treaty system. CoE and OECD have standing mechanisms to help develop Internet-related policy related treaties when needed. UN does not have such a mechanism. CIRP like proposals are calls to have such a facilitating standing mechanism. Without such mechanism, it will always be CoE and OECD that will make Internet policy related treaties, or policy frameworks, and then other countries will be kind of forced to join in.... Simply because developing countries are left with no mechanism to even prepare for and initiate such a process. This is deliberate ham-shackling of developing countries - to put then in a position of permanent dependency. That is the main point I am making. > Governments (and parliaments) will continue to be the first stakeholder in making decisions on public policy issues related to the Internet. And governments can enhance their mutual cooperation and agree on issues (if they are able to agree) whatever they want. No they cannot.... Unless there is a standing mechanism that does the background work, provide space for discussions and moving positions forward, and then facilitate public policy making - as CICCP does for OECD.... There is nothing like that for developing countries.... and the UN is the place which such a body equivalent to CCICP of OECD should be placed. > This is part of the national sovereignty or - to be correct - part of the jus cogens principles of "sovereign equality" es enshrined in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant UN Declaration on International Law Principles from 1970 which has a detailed definition of the seven jus cogens principles. The current OECD/ CoE led 'global' policy development violates these principles in practice... That is the problem. And the need is to restore the equality of all countries, which can only be done by shifting what OECD/ CoE does today in terms of 'global' Internet policy to the UN. parminder > BTW the seven principles include also the jus cogens principel of the "duty to international cooperation" and leads to the "no harm-principle" in the Internet world ( a certain limitation of sovereignty) which we also discussed at length within the COE. This is not new and will remain as long as the UN exists. > > What has changed is the environment in which governments operate. And if it comes to the Internet, this environemnt has many layers and many players. In an article - ten years ago - I called it the M³C³ (Multilayer Multiplayer Mechanism of Communication, Coordination and Collaboration). Governments have to adjust their policy and decision making to this new environment. And this includes that they have nowadays to coordinate their policy not only with other governments but have also to share their decision making capacity with other stakeholders. This is new, indeed. But this is what the govenrments agreed in Tunis when they accepted the IG definition, proposed by the WGIG. This will not come overnight. Insofar, to have a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) linked to the IGF with a (limited) decision making capacity would be - in my eyes - an interesting move into the still unchartered territory of multistakeholder decision making and the next realistic and logical step in the long march towards a new global governance system of the 21st century. > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder > Gesendet: Mo 25.11.2013 14:18 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit > > > > On Sunday 24 November 2013 06:29 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > > Parminder: > To the extent that we can all agree that there are indeed many issues that are not being dealt by current mechanisms, that is a good start for doing the real work of thinking about the needed mechanisms. > > Wolfgang: > Can you specify which issue is NOT dealt by the IGF? And if all issues can be raised within the framework of the IGF, why not to make the IGF stronger? > > > IGF cannot decide on issues, and unless it is your position that nothing in global IG needs any kind of decisions (is it your position?), IGF of course needs to be complemented by a decision making body. Wolfgang, you co-authored the Council of Europe (CoE) report on cross border Internet. Do you think that numerous internet public policy issues you mention there need no decision making. If so, why did you not recommend in your report that CoE should should forgo inter- governmental means to develop public policies, and allow EuroDIG, the European IGF, to do it? > > In fact the report says, "States have rights and responsibilities for developing and implementing international Internet-related public policy...". To the credit of its authors, it also says' ""International Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements should ensure full and equal participation of all countries." > > That should seal it in terms of the issue under discussion - the need for mechanisms at the global level for international Internet-related public policies, and the nature of such mechanisms. > > In fact the CoE report recommended that an *inter-governmental body* develops > > 1, General principles on Internet governance > 2. Recommendations for international cooperation on management of critical internet resources (i would take this as pertaining to the 'oversight' issue) > > The report further goes on to recommend to an inter-gov body of the CoE "to continue the examination of the feasibility of drafting instruments designed to preserve or re inforce the protection of cross border flow of Internet traffic, openness and neutrality". > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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.benedek at uni-graz.at Thu Nov 28 01:57:36 2013 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:57:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Wolfgang Benedek Von: Anriette Esterhuysen > Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, Anriette Esterhuysen > Datum: Mittwoch, 27. November 2013 21:03 An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, Grace Githaiga > Betreff: RE: [governance] Request to reconsider Agree. Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Grace Githaiga > Date: To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] Request to reconsider + 1 Nnenna. ________________________________ Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:58:17 -0800 From: nne75 at yahoo.com To: nb at bollow.ch; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider Dear Norbert, As at yesterday night, which was really early this morning, I was still exchanging mails with you. I no longer speak a whole lot on this list for some reasons that we have mentioned at one time or another: the undermining, the attack, the heavy flow of email, some listers' overbearing attitude etc It is true that so many things are wrong with the IGC list at the moment, and we are all aware of it. Maybe we have not had the opportunity to say it openly, but here are a few truths: 1. The IGC is the widest, oldest Civil Society network that has followed the WSIS and the IG issues 2. We have a history, of collaboration, of team work and of producing joint actions 3. We chose you and Sala. We did, because we felt you two are good, qualified and have the personality to lead us 4. Being the IGC Coordinator is not a small task, the proof is that not many can/want to step into your shoes. 5. We recognise that IGC Coordinatorship is tasking: time wise, emotionally, physically, bandwidth wise, health wise and even financially. I have been on this list before it was created. When the caucus was hosted elsewhere, before we ever drafted a charter... I'm somehow part of the silent majority and I'm happy to answer the question "why are you no longer contributing to IGC?" if anybody asks me. So on behlalf of some of the silent majority, who still believe in your leadership, in your energy, who appreciate your contribution.. I ask that you reconsider. Thank you in advance. Nnenna @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 nb at bollow.ch Thu Nov 28 03:30:24 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 09:30:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward, and thanks for all "please reconsider" messages (was Re: Resignation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131128093024.09c95562@quill> Dear all Let me start by expressing heartfelt gratitude for all the positive messages that I have received in response to my resignation announcement, both on-list and off-list, including in particular the various "please reconsider" messages. I would very much like to see another serious attempt made to make IGC work on the basis of its current Charter (possibly amended in a way that is possible to achieve through some charter amendments that don't involve replacing the current IGC Charter by an entirely revised new one). This may appear to be near-impossible, not only because of the need to change an unproductive hostile overall communication climate, but also because the IGC Charter was not designed for the current kind of situation (where IGC is one among several civil society networks, and it is important to coordinate between them). I think that I've done my share of serving as a co-coordinator who has tried to make happen what is apparently near-impossible. I don't feel that I can reasonably continue in this role: I believe that for any plausible chance of success, a fresh start is necessary at this point. (Is it really necessary to explain in detail why that is the case?) Let's elect a fresh team of co-coordinators -- AND LET'S TRY TO WORK CONSTRUCTIVELY IN THAT NEW CONFIGURATION TO MAKE IGC A NON-HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT AND A VIABLE VOICE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY AGAIN!!! This is a responsibility that must not simply be dumped on the co-coordinators. The group "IGC members without coordinator hat" --which I have just re-joined-- also has a very significant responsibility. So, again - please let's jointly make another attempt to change the currently dysfunctional aspects of IGC. If this doesn't work out, I would suggest that a plan B would be for the people who have contributed constructively during this "last chance" attempt for IGC v1.0 to get together in some way (in-person or virtually) to discuss how an IGC v2.0 could be chartered. In the case of the "last chance" attempt for IGC v1.0 not working out, these people who have tried to make it work will know who the others are who also have, in a truly constructive way and based on a genuine civil society perspective, invested a significant amount of energy into trying to make this "last chance for IGC v1.0" attempt work. I would consider this to be a reasonably democratic way in which a steering group to lead a re-chartering of IGC could emerge from the ashes of the current mess. Greetings, Norbert P.S. By the way, the window of opportunity to volunteer as a candidate for the upcoming IGC coordinator elections is still open. David Cake wrote: > I’d like to echo what Kerry said - without going into detail on > NomCom deliberations, there were clearly a range of different > opinions on selection, with regards to how to balance the various > desirable qualities of a range of candidates, but the process was > collaborative and civil throughout and consensus achieved, within a > very short time frame. > > Regards > > David > > -- > David Cake > Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig) > > > On Wednesday, 27 November 2013 at 1:13 pm, Kerry Brown wrote: > > > Norbert > > > > I sympathize with you. You have my thanks for all the work you have > > done. > > Everyone else > > > > I just finished being involved with the nominating committee to > > nominate people from the IGC to the MAG. It was very refreshing to > > work with such a collaborative group of people. I had almost > > disengaged from participating on the governance mailing list > > because of all the personal attacks, vitriol, and lack of trying > > for consensus rather than insisting on personal views winning the > > day. This list will become increasingly irrelevant if this > > continues. We need to find a way to bring the list back to > > discussions rather than arguments. Working on the noncom showed me > > this can be done. There was a wide range of differing opinions but > > we all worked to find consensus. Lets do the same for the list at > > large. If we don't the list will very quickly self destruct and an > > important voice for civil society will cease to be heard. Kerry > > Brown -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Nov 28 08:33:05 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:03:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] working group on enhanced cooperation Message-ID: <52974611.1060900@itforchange.net> Hi All As you know the working group on enhanced cooperation set up what it calls as an open ended 'correspondence group' which will, roughly, map policy issues to existing institutions, if any; assess the adequacy and other characteristics of such mechanisms; note where there may be none; and overall identify various 'gaps' which will help the WGEC make its final recommendations. The 'correspondence group' obviously has a very important task, which lies at the heart of figuring out what is needed to change/ improve in global governance of the Internet. The group will function in an virtual environment, over an elist. Membership of the group is open and anyone - yes, anyone - can join. You just have to write to the coordinator of the group - Phil Rushton at philip.m.rushton at bt.com to put you into the group. (Joy Liddicoat is the co-coordinator). The terms of reference, already circulated on this list - are put below this email for reference... parminder 1. The correspondence group will work electronically. If necessary, conference calls will be held, but the main method of working will be emails. 2. The correspondence group is open to all stakeholders. 3. The correspondence group will provide three update reports to the WGEC Chair and Mailing List at: End of November 2013, beginning of January 2014 and End of January 2014. 4. The Correspondence Group will provide an initial output in the first week of January 2014 and a final document for consideration by the WGEC by the 12^th of February 2014. 5. The Correspondence Group will: (a) Review the identified international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet in the spreadsheet that has been developed in the second meeting of the WGEC. /(NB) Additional issues may be added to the identified public policy issues if agreed by the WGEC./ (b) list where there are existing international mechanisms addressing the issues in the list (c) identify the status of mechanisms, if any, whether they are addressing the issues (d) Attempt to identify the gaps in order to ascertain what type of recommendations may be required to be drafted by the WGEC. 6. Any issue that cannot reach consensus in the Correspondence Group will be referred to the Working Group, with the options that represent the range of opinions expressed in the Correspondence Group. The final decision on such issues will be made by the WGEC. 7. This Correspondence Group does not replace the WGEC and will not take any decision pertaining to the mandate of WGEC. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 28 08:51:52 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:51:52 -0200 Subject: [governance] HLLMs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ian, They are different. One is the High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the political articulation and fostering the involvement of the international community. To be formed, as far as I know. The other is the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation, which will meet in London by Dec 12 and 13 and had its members chosen by ICANN, with the goal to produce a report. Best Joana On 28 Nov 2013 02:11, "Ian Peter" wrote: > Can anyone advise whether the High Level Leaders Group mentioned in the > Brazilian media release is envisaged to be the same high level panel > advised recently to meet in London in a couple of weeks time or something > entirely different? > > > Ian Peter > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 28 10:09:00 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:09:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Mawaki, Thank you for helping me to clarify what I was thinking. Civil society, as we are using the term, seems to embrace "all of us" and therefore is a very unwieldy thing to provide "representation" for. Apart from any other considerations the societies within which we live have coalesced around a broad range of norms, values and priorities. To my mind the differing priorities create the greatest obstacle to reaching consensus. To make matters worse "civil society", as well as standing for all of us also stands for "each of us"; that is "civil society" is the most likely champion of the rights of the individual as well as of those individuals taken together as a group, a society. If I wanted to propose a conspiracy theory I would suggest that one of the best ways to discredit the claims for consideration of individual and social rights is to create an entity called "civil society" and offer it one, or more, seats at the table to speak for individual and social rights. Divide and rule is a method which has proved successful, but aggregate to divide to rule, that's a really innovative twist. Which is why I think it's important to emphasise the individual and social policy perspectives, rather than the people comprised by "civil society". Consider the nature of "all of us". Many of us have no idea what "Internet governance" is all about, and do not understand the rather arcane language that is used, particularly the acronyms, and especially if we belong to the group that has little or no knowledge of English. All of us however are affected by the Internet, even if we don't use it. But most of us don't think through a prism of "the Internet"; instead we are concerned about the privacy of our personal information, our rights to express ourselves and associate with others, what things cost, our control over the money that we earn, our security, etc., all of which may in some way be connected with the Internet. The main aspects of issues have been fairly well established. I would suggest that there are 5 - technical, governmental, business, social and individual. Not all issues will have all 5 aspects, but very few of them will have only one. In some cases the relevant different aspects will align harmoniously, in others a point of balance will have to be negotiated. Each of the 5 will need a team of advocates to argue and support the claims of that aspect. Each team will need to have a broad geographic spread - for example in the technical aspect what is possible and desirable in Denmark may not work in Cameroon. Each team will need to be able to focus on the particular aspect for which it is the advocate. Each team will therefore "argue from a particular perspective" rather than "belong to a particular group". George asks "where?" I don't know. We need a marketplace, an agora. We need a place of trust and safety. Possibly we need a virtual hammam to which could be brought naked ideas? Setting up another new space is always problematic, but trust is a very expensive thing to lose. Trust is in fact priceless: you cannot buy it. It will grow back by itself given a favourable environment, but the current environment is unfavourable to the point of being toxic. What is needed is an "honest broker" who can be trusted, by everyone, not to build empires and to insist on fair play. And to finance the enterprise? The cost of maintaining the space could be provided in equal shares by all of the large enterprises for whom the Internet is a source of revenue - as a free gift - the money to be scrupulously and publicly audited annually. This is an attempt to look at the problem from a different direction. Deirdre On 26 November 2013 08:27, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by >> Michael Gurstein >> Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST >> Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society >> I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread >> Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder >> environment >> begun by George Sadowsky. >> >> Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues? >> In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point was >> made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at a recent >> workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his children also query >> the speed of the Internet at home when they have to do their homework. The >> only people excluded from civil society are incarcerated prisoners, and >> that also is a statement that can be questioned. If I understand him >> correctly George Sadowsky is making the same point. Civil society is us - >> all of us. >> > > Sure! We may declare everybody is CS and expect any institutional policy > process to open mike to whoever walks in and requests to speak as CS. From > my part, I was working on the basis of assumptions I thought were widely > recognized as part of the current landscape --and even an inevitable part. > If we want to talk about _multistakeholder_ processes, then we cannot but > recognize multiple stakeholders, thus boundaries. If we have set up IGC as > a membership structure, then we have necessarily identified criteria for > membership, thus boundaries. Mine was an attempt to clarify and even extend > those inevitable boundaries (based on our operating assumptions); I didn't > participate in creating them and am not necessarily advocating for > maintaining or reinforcing them. I can content myself with any other viable > way to make my voice and voices of any people with legitimate concerns > heard and taken into account. > I think I have said all what I had to say on this topic. > Thanks, > > Mawaki > ..... -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Nov 28 10:41:59 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 13:41:59 -0200 Subject: [governance] HLLMs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52976447.1090005@cafonso.ca> To complement the clear info from Joana: it is one of the five strategic panels proposed by Icann to position Icann in relation to several key issues. Take a look: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15jul13-en.htm frt rgds --c.a. On 11/28/2013 11:51 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Hi Ian, > > They are different. > > One is the High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for > conducting the political articulation and fostering the involvement of > the international community. To be formed, as far as I know. > > The other is the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation, > which will meet in London by Dec 12 and 13 and had its members chosen by > ICANN, with the goal to produce a report. > > Best > > Joana > > On 28 Nov 2013 02:11, "Ian Peter" > wrote: > > Can anyone advise whether the High Level Leaders Group mentioned in > the Brazilian media release is envisaged to be the same high level > panel advised recently to meet in London in a couple of weeks time > or something entirely different? > > > Ian Peter > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Nov 28 13:27:50 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:27:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <20131126162411.4422a2ea@quill> Message-ID: <20131128192750.134cc030@quill> McTim wrote: > Norbert, > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > On the pad, someone is suggesting to change > > > > "1) Internationalisation of ICANN and IANA: The Global Meeting > > should aim at develping a concrete solution how the desired > > internationalization can be achieved." > > > > to > > > > "1) Internationalisation of ICANN and IANA: The Global Meeting > > should aim at developing a number of possible solutions on how this > > desired internationalization can be achieved." > > > > > > I'd like to request the author of this change to explain the > > reasoning behind it. > > Have I violated your anti-american orthodoxy? If my message came across as anti-american or otherwise harsh, I'd like to assure you that nothing of the sort was intended. I remember Fadi saying pretty clearly in Bali something along the lines of a key purpose of next year's event in Brazil being to decide on a solution for the need to internationalize ICANN. The Brazilian government was also very clear that they envisioned the event as one where decisions would be taken. Now whether that is realistic is a different question. In particular I have significant concerns that the timeline may be too tight for the kind of preparatory process that is necessary for reaching a legitimate decision at the Brazil event, one that would clearly get the necessary kind of broad acceptance also among non-participants of the event. Also it is true that the more recent official announcements have been more cautious than what was said in Bali. Clearly expectation management is being practiced in order to ensure that it will be possible to declare the event a big success even if the original ambitions are not realized. Nevertheless, I would suggest that the default starting point for continuing the conversations that were started in Bali should be what was said in Bali. If we make an IGC statement in which we disagree with the original stated purpose for the event, we should state why. If we don't disagree with the objective on grounds of principle but on grounds of process (such as the timeframe being too short, and/or not enough of the key people being likely to be able to effectively participate during the Brazil event, or for any other similar kind of reason) we should explain how that original objective can still be reached, for example by means of a follow-up process leading to a Decision-Making Global Multistakeholder Meeting in 2016 or whatever. In any case, these IMO are matters that IGC needs to discuss before putting out a statement that goes against what was said in Bali. 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Nov 28 13:49:48 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 05:49:48 +1100 Subject: [governance] HLLMs In-Reply-To: <52976447.1090005@cafonso.ca> References: <52976447.1090005@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5858C6905D764DBE80F69D0DF261AD5C@Toshiba> thanks Joana and Carlos -----Original Message----- From: Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 2:41 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Joana Varon Subject: Re: [governance] HLLMs To complement the clear info from Joana: it is one of the five strategic panels proposed by Icann to position Icann in relation to several key issues. Take a look: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15jul13-en.htm frt rgds --c.a. On 11/28/2013 11:51 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Hi Ian, > > They are different. > > One is the High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for > conducting the political articulation and fostering the involvement of > the international community. To be formed, as far as I know. > > The other is the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation, > which will meet in London by Dec 12 and 13 and had its members chosen by > ICANN, with the goal to produce a report. > > Best > > Joana > > On 28 Nov 2013 02:11, "Ian Peter" > wrote: > > Can anyone advise whether the High Level Leaders Group mentioned in > the Brazilian media release is envisaged to be the same high level > panel advised recently to meet in London in a couple of weeks time > or something entirely different? > > > Ian Peter > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 Nov 28 13:52:00 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:52:00 -0800 Subject: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> Message-ID: <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> A belated reply, but I support the document (in the interests of achieving a consensus perhaps it would be possible to fuzzify McTim's point of disagreement--I've indicated one possibility on the pad) and would ask that it move forward to some speedy conclusion and distribution. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 1:03 PM To: IGC Subject: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance Dear all >From Carlos Afonso I have learned that it would be valuable at the present stage for civil society networks like the IGC to make statements in regard to the planned Global Multistakeholder Meeting aiming at ensuring that the process will be a genuinely open (in particular to all kinds of civil society perspectives) multistakeholder process -- similar to what APC has already emphasized in a recent statement. I've set up a pad with an initial draft: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil2014-process-objectives This initial text has been very significantly inspired by (and in some parts in fact copied verbatim from) the relevant parts of APC's statement (if these parts of the statement end up going through the IGC consensus process unchanged, we should probably give explicit credit in some way.) Here's a copy of this initial draft text: --snip----------------------------------------------------------------- Statement of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance As an international civil society network that has emerged from the WSIS process, the Internet Governance Caucus sees the planned Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance as a huge opportunity. In order for this opportunity to be fully utilized and not wasted, we urge the organizers to base the Global Meeting on a democratic deliberative process. In particular, * Transparent, open, inclusive and participatory mechanisms must be established for the involvement of the widest possible variety of stakeholders, in the planning and organisation of the summit, from its inception, both in regard to issues of processes and substance. * Participation in the meeting should be linked to an online consultation process similar to the one successfully employed by Brazilian government and society to draft the “Marco Civil”, and in the selection of participants preference should be given to people and institutions who have participated actively in this online process through making written submissions. This should be the case for all the stakeholders, including governments. * Drafting groups responsible for capturing outputs should be appointed prior to the event, and include representatives from a wide variety of stakeholder groups. The Global Meeting should be focused on creating, through accountable and transparent processes, concrete outcome documents in these two main areas: 1) Internationalisation of ICANN and IANA: The Global Meeting should aim at develping a concrete solution how the desired internationalization can be achieved. 2) An international set of principles (or a civil framework) for internet policy making that are fully harmonised with existing human rights agreements, especially in regard to ensuring in the context of Internet communications and cloud computing that any exceptions to the "right to privacy" and "right to anonymity" principles are necessary and proportionate. --snap----------------------------------------------------------------- Are you in support of IGC making such a statement? Do you see needs for changes? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Nov 28 13:59:36 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:59:36 -0800 Subject: [governance] HLLMs In-Reply-To: <5858C6905D764DBE80F69D0DF261AD5C@Toshiba> References: <52976447.1090005@cafonso.ca> <5858C6905D764DBE80F69D0DF261AD5C@Toshiba> Message-ID: <02f901ceec6b$fc260910$f4721b30$@gmail.com> Yes, on my behalf as well, and that being the case I would ask that my name be withdrawn as a possible nominee. It is now evident that this panel will formally be talking to (and mostly on behalf of) ICANN and my interest is rather in providing support for an effective CS participation in the Brazil process. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 10:50 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso Subject: Re: [governance] HLLMs thanks Joana and Carlos -----Original Message----- From: Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 2:41 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Joana Varon Subject: Re: [governance] HLLMs To complement the clear info from Joana: it is one of the five strategic panels proposed by Icann to position Icann in relation to several key issues. Take a look: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15jul13-en.htm frt rgds --c.a. On 11/28/2013 11:51 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Hi Ian, > > They are different. > > One is the High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for > conducting the political articulation and fostering the involvement of > the international community. To be formed, as far as I know. > > The other is the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation, > which will meet in London by Dec 12 and 13 and had its members chosen > by ICANN, with the goal to produce a report. > > Best > > Joana > > On 28 Nov 2013 02:11, "Ian Peter" > wrote: > > Can anyone advise whether the High Level Leaders Group mentioned in > the Brazilian media release is envisaged to be the same high level > panel advised recently to meet in London in a couple of weeks time > or something entirely different? > > > Ian Peter > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Nov 28 14:06:44 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:06:44 +1300 Subject: [governance] HLLMs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6D6DAC55-338F-4EF3-BBDB-846F516B1966@gmail.com> This HLLM is an ICANN driven HLLM where the two civil society posts are likely to go to ICANN's stakeholders that fit the Bill. This would be the Non Commercial Stakeholders group and At Large Advisory Committee. The timing of the Press Release led to the general confusion. Personally, the irony is not lost on me as I was unequivocally told that the ALAC nor At Large is not civil society when I first joined the ALAC two years ago. Disclosure: My term ended in Buenos Aires at the ICANN 48 and was not a party to any discussions relating to the convening of HLLM. It is unclear whether it is this HLLM that will drive the discussions on INET. However, various global civil society Organizations have been meeting virtually to constructively discuss how it can field its representatives to the different steering committees. Kind Regards, Sala (in my personal capacity) Sent from my iPad > On Nov 29, 2013, at 2:51 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > > Hi Ian, > > They are different. > > One is the High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the political articulation and fostering the involvement of the international community. To be formed, as far as I know. > > The other is the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation, which will meet in London by Dec 12 and 13 and had its members chosen by ICANN, with the goal to produce a report. > > Best > > Joana >> On 28 Nov 2013 02:11, "Ian Peter" wrote: >> Can anyone advise whether the High Level Leaders Group mentioned in the Brazilian media release is envisaged to be the same high level panel advised recently to meet in London in a couple of weeks time or something entirely different? >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 28 14:09:34 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:09:34 +1300 Subject: [governance] HLLMs In-Reply-To: <02f901ceec6b$fc260910$f4721b30$@gmail.com> References: <52976447.1090005@cafonso.ca> <5858C6905D764DBE80F69D0DF261AD5C@Toshiba> <02f901ceec6b$fc260910$f4721b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <02DDFA0D-C8C3-4031-828B-4F16208F451A@gmail.com> Yes this is why we have deliberately been slow in calling for volunteers and nominees to wait for clarification on what the scope of the Panels or Committees are so that when we do send out the appropriate calls, it is crystal clear to everyone what the scope is so that people can determine whether or not they wish to engage or participate. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:59 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Yes, on my behalf as well, and that being the case I would ask that my name be withdrawn as a possible nominee. It is now evident that this panel will formally be talking to (and mostly on behalf of) ICANN and my interest is rather in providing support for an effective CS participation in the Brazil process. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 10:50 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso > Subject: Re: [governance] HLLMs > > thanks Joana and Carlos > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos A. Afonso > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 2:41 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Joana Varon > Subject: Re: [governance] HLLMs > > To complement the clear info from Joana: it is one of the five strategic panels proposed by Icann to position Icann in relation to several key issues. Take a look: > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15jul13-en.htm > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > >> On 11/28/2013 11:51 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >> Hi Ian, >> >> They are different. >> >> One is the High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for >> conducting the political articulation and fostering the involvement of >> the international community. To be formed, as far as I know. >> >> The other is the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation, >> which will meet in London by Dec 12 and 13 and had its members chosen >> by ICANN, with the goal to produce a report. >> >> Best >> >> Joana >> >> On 28 Nov 2013 02:11, "Ian Peter" > > wrote: >> >> Can anyone advise whether the High Level Leaders Group mentioned in >> the Brazilian media release is envisaged to be the same high level >> panel advised recently to meet in London in a couple of weeks time >> or something entirely different? >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Nov 28 19:43:06 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 06:13:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <18DF91B4-971A-42D7-A259-53DD9F595737@hserus.net> Mike, Your suggested change is suitable and widely acceptable too. +1 from me, I would have used consensus there somewhere, but that would be splitting hairs and what you suggest is good enough to find closure and move beyond this last argument. --srs (iPad) > On 29-Nov-2013, at 0:22, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > A belated reply, but I support the document (in the interests of achieving a consensus perhaps it would be possible to fuzzify McTim's point of disagreement--I've indicated one possibility on the pad) and would ask that it move forward to some speedy conclusion and distribution. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 1:03 PM > To: IGC > Subject: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > Dear all > > From Carlos Afonso I have learned that it would be valuable at the present stage for civil society networks like the IGC to make statements in regard to the planned Global Multistakeholder Meeting aiming at ensuring that the process will be a genuinely open (in particular to all kinds of civil society perspectives) multistakeholder process -- similar to what APC has already emphasized in a recent statement. > > I've set up a pad with an initial draft: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil2014-process-objectives > > This initial text has been very significantly inspired by (and in some parts in fact copied verbatim from) the relevant parts of APC's statement (if these parts of the statement end up going through the IGC consensus process unchanged, we should probably give explicit credit in some way.) > > Here's a copy of this initial draft text: > > --snip----------------------------------------------------------------- > Statement of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > As an international civil society network that has emerged from the WSIS process, the Internet Governance Caucus sees the planned Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance as a huge opportunity. > > In order for this opportunity to be fully utilized and not wasted, we urge the organizers to base the Global Meeting on a democratic deliberative process. In particular, > > * Transparent, open, inclusive and participatory mechanisms must be > established for the involvement of the widest possible variety of > stakeholders, in the planning and organisation of the summit, from > its inception, both in regard to issues of processes and substance. > > * Participation in the meeting should be linked to an online > consultation process similar to the one successfully employed by > Brazilian government and society to draft the “Marco Civil”, and in > the selection of participants preference should be given to people > and institutions who have participated actively in this online > process through making written submissions. This should be the case > for all the stakeholders, including governments. > > * Drafting groups responsible for capturing outputs should be > appointed prior to the event, and include representatives from a > wide variety of stakeholder groups. > > The Global Meeting should be focused on creating, through accountable and transparent processes, concrete outcome documents in these two main > areas: > > 1) Internationalisation of ICANN and IANA: The Global Meeting should aim at develping a concrete solution how the desired internationalization can be achieved. > > 2) An international set of principles (or a civil framework) for internet policy making that are fully harmonised with existing human rights agreements, especially in regard to ensuring in the context of Internet communications and cloud computing that any exceptions to the "right to privacy" and "right to anonymity" principles are necessary and proportionate. > --snap----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Are you in support of IGC making such a statement? > > Do you see needs for changes? > > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Nov 28 20:09:54 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 14:09:54 +1300 Subject: [governance] Conclusion and Notice to nominees/ Was IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> Message-ID: Dear All, Having landed yesterday and still recovering from some jet lag, I am now attending to some urgent Caucus matters. Firstly, Happy thanksgiving to all our American colleagues on this list and we have much to be thankful for. NomCom MAG candidates and volunteers Many thanks for your willingness to participate and offer your services. We remain grateful and thankful that you were willing to put yourself out there. There will be many more opportunities in the future. To those who were selected by the NomCom, congratulations. Whilst we will put your names forward as IGC Nominees, I ask that if and when you do get selected to the MAG to not forget communicating with diverse civil society networks, keep them updated and involved just as others who have gone before you have been doing. Remember that as voices in the MAG you carry a stewardship role of stewarding diverse civil society voices into the MAG. As you fill in your forms to send to the IGF Secretariat, please use this contact address: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Email: coordinators at igcaucus.org Tel: +679 9982851 NomCom Results and Work Special thanks to NomCom Non Voting Chair, Ian Peter and voting members Deirdre Williams, Kerry Brown, Shaila Mistry, David Cake and Jefsey Morfin for the absolutely stellar work in making the selection, liaising with candidates for information and coming to a conclusion. I officially acknowledge receipt of the list of Nominees which will be sent to the IGF Secretariat before 1 December, 2013 via a letter from the IGC. I can confirm that the coordinators did not interfere with the selection process in anyway both on list and Offlist. Special thanks to Norbert who ran the random selection process by which the names for the NomCom were drawn. Again, I echo the voices of those who have already commented on Ian Peter's Report. Many thanks! Job superbly executed and the community remains indebted. Kind Regards, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro (co-coordinator) Sent from my iPad > On Nov 27, 2013, at 10:20 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > > I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). > > > > > > RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma > Bertrand de la Chappelle > Stuart Hamilton > Sonigitu Ekpe > Matthew Shears > Mawaki Chango > > The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in support of their nominations by filling in the form at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat > > > > CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION > > Anriette Esterhuysen > William Drake > Izumi Aizu > Fatima Cambronero > > > > > NOMCOM MEMBERS > > > > The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were > > Deirdre Williams > > Kerry Brown > > Shaila Mistry > > David Cake > > Jefsey Morfin > > > > Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. > > > > PROCESS > > Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to encourage more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. > > The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) > > Nnenna Nwakanma * > Bertrand de la Chappelle* > Stuart Hamilton* > Sonigitu Ekpe* > Matthew Shears* > Mawaki Chango* > Mishi Choudhary > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > > > > The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before our emails) > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen * > William Drake * > Izumi Aizu * > Fatima Cambronero * > Lillian Nalwoga > > > > In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our recommendations. > > > > PROCESS > > > > The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The Nomcom then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 against each criteria. > > No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for candidates against other criteria were compiled) > > Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They did serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. > > 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) > 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the IGC (8) > 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote participation (6.5) > 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) > 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives > held by civil society.(8.5) > 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute constructively to MAG deliberations (9) > 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including the IGC on issues and progress (8) > > 8. Gender and geographic balance > > All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. > > Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come to a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment that the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been very welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had the co –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the Nomcom was being formed. > > I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your behalf. > > > > Ian Peter > > Non voting chair > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Thu Nov 28 22:52:13 2013 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:52:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> Message-ID: Dear NomCom and all, Thank you for the excellent work and outcome. Congratulartions for the new candidates! Thank you also for your support for myself. I feel honored, and will do my best if selected again. best, izumi 2013/11/27 Ian Peter > > > I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by > Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder > Advisory Group (MAG). > > > > > > RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma > > Bertrand de la Chappelle > > Stuart Hamilton > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Matthew Shears > > Mawaki Chango > > > > The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in > support of their nominations by filling in the form at > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies > should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight > timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat > > > > > > > > CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen > William Drake > Izumi Aizu > Fatima Cambronero > > > > > > NOMCOM MEMBERS > > > > The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection > process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were > > Deirdre Williams > > Kerry Brown > > Shaila Mistry > > David Cake > > Jefsey Morfin > > > > Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. > > > > PROCESS > > Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for > nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to encourage > more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive > nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. > > The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one > nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) > > Nnenna Nwakanma * > > Bertrand de la Chappelle* > > Stuart Hamilton* > > Sonigitu Ekpe* > > Matthew Shears* > > Mawaki Chango* > > Mishi Choudhary > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > > > > The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, > asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for > endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before > our emails) > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen * > William Drake * > Izumi Aizu * > Fatima Cambronero * > Lillian Nalwoga > > > > In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our > recommendations. > > > > PROCESS > > > > The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and > advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The Nomcom > then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and > 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria > below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 against > each criteria. > > No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria > was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for > candidates against other criteria were compiled) > > Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection > only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They did > serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who > were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and > whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly > with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. > > 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) > 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the > IGC (8) > 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote > participation (6.5) > 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) > 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives > held by civil society.(8.5) > 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute > constructively to MAG deliberations (9) > 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including > the IGC on issues and progress (8) > > 8. Gender and geographic balance > > All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the > candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an > exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. > > Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate > reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come to > a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment that > the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving > balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more > candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been very > welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under > which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had the > co –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the > Nomcom was being formed. > > I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated > work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess > candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your > behalf. > > > > Ian Peter > > Non voting chair > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Nov 29 00:46:51 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:46:51 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as received In-Reply-To: <20131125194552.6adc61ca@quill> References: <0f7b01cee6c2$b3c32e40$1b498ac0$@gmail.com> <29CFA8BA-3700-42B5-AC45-6201685DD3D6@ciroap.org> <20131125194552.6adc61ca@quill> Message-ID: <52982A4B.8030001@ciroap.org> Moving Adam Peake's question from another thread: > I have a concern. But first could you please explain who was involved in the selection process, who from which organizations, what criteria considered, who were the candidates considered. Also cc'ing the governance list, because this is not a Best Bits-specific issue (the new joint civil society committee is *not* a Best Bits committee, I've merely been put forward as the liaison from Best Bits to sit on it). So who was involved in the selection process? Everyone who has been involved in discussions in the networks that are on the steering committee. The liaisons from each network have been passing those discussions on. Who are those liaisons? One from each of the civil society networks that is currently on the joint committee, viz. Sala (and formerly Norbert) from IGC, Robin Gross from NCSG, myself from Best Bits, Ginger Paque from Diplo, Anriette from APC and Ian Peter as an independent chair. Those members are not set in stone, they just volunteered to fill an urgent need for a way of nominating civil society representatives to various processes jointly. We are going to be suggesting, and opening for discussion, some criteria for other groups to join. Other groups who already expressed interest are Michael Gurstein on behalf of his community informatics network, and the Internet Rights and Principles coalition. But meanwhile, we have put aside further process-tweaking in order to deal with the urgent task at hand. As for what criteria and what candidates were considered, there is a thread on this with discussion back and forth, and it would take some time to go back and summarize it. But amongst the candidates considered were: * William Drake * Valeria Betancourt * Anriette Esterhuysen * Vladimir Radunovik * Michael Gurstein * Thomas Lowenhaupt * Grace Githaiga * Nnenna Nwakanma * Avri Doria * Jeanette Hoffman * Milton Mueller * Stephanie Perrin * Tara Taubman * Judy Okite * Anju Magnal * Jovan Kurbalija The main criterion was how much support existed within the individual networks that had put forward the names in question. Also considered important was that there should be at least one person who can represent internal ICANN issues, and one person to represent wider issues. The candidates should also have been involved with the communities that were nominating them. That's about all that I have to say for now. Ian, as the independent chair, may wish to address any further questions that you might have. -- *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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Nov 29 00:58:08 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:58:08 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as received In-Reply-To: <52982A4B.8030001@ciroap.org> References: <0f7b01cee6c2$b3c32e40$1b498ac0$@gmail.com> <29CFA8BA-3700-42B5-AC45-6201685DD3D6@ciroap.org> <20131125194552.6adc61ca@quill> <52982A4B.8030001@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <271804DEC3234754AF7B44F1CEA809C7@Toshiba> all I would add Adam was that by the time all names had been gathered from multiple lists we had less than 48 hours to arrive at combined names to meet the deadline – the London meeting is only 2 weeks away. So this called for a pretty quick methodology. (and this at a time when people were travelling from ICANN meetings etc and working through time zones). I should add that in addition to the two candidates mentioned we will be arguing strongly for Jovan to also be included as an independent facilitator. Our other option in the time frame, I think, was to do nothing. I should add that Anriette was not involved in any decision to include her name. That was a unanimous decision from others who participated. Yes, an imperfect process. But one that gave us good well supported names in a very limited timeframe. Ian From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 4:46 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as received Moving Adam Peake's question from another thread: I have a concern. But first could you please explain who was involved in the selection process, who from which organizations, what criteria considered, who were the candidates considered. Also cc'ing the governance list, because this is not a Best Bits-specific issue (the new joint civil society committee is not a Best Bits committee, I've merely been put forward as the liaison from Best Bits to sit on it). So who was involved in the selection process? Everyone who has been involved in discussions in the networks that are on the steering committee. The liaisons from each network have been passing those discussions on. Who are those liaisons? One from each of the civil society networks that is currently on the joint committee, viz. Sala (and formerly Norbert) from IGC, Robin Gross from NCSG, myself from Best Bits, Ginger Paque from Diplo, Anriette from APC and Ian Peter as an independent chair. Those members are not set in stone, they just volunteered to fill an urgent need for a way of nominating civil society representatives to various processes jointly. We are going to be suggesting, and opening for discussion, some criteria for other groups to join. Other groups who already expressed interest are Michael Gurstein on behalf of his community informatics network, and the Internet Rights and Principles coalition. But meanwhile, we have put aside further process-tweaking in order to deal with the urgent task at hand. As for what criteria and what candidates were considered, there is a thread on this with discussion back and forth, and it would take some time to go back and summarize it. But amongst the candidates considered were: a.. William Drake b.. Valeria Betancourt c.. Anriette Esterhuysen d.. Vladimir Radunovik e.. Michael Gurstein f.. Thomas Lowenhaupt g.. Grace Githaiga h.. Nnenna Nwakanma i.. Avri Doria j.. Jeanette Hoffman k.. Milton Mueller l.. Stephanie Perrin m.. Tara Taubman n.. Judy Okite o.. Anju Magnal p.. Jovan Kurbalija The main criterion was how much support existed within the individual networks that had put forward the names in question. Also considered important was that there should be at least one person who can represent internal ICANN issues, and one person to represent wider issues. The candidates should also have been involved with the communities that were nominating them. That's about all that I have to say for now. Ian, as the independent chair, may wish to address any further questions that you might have. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 29 02:39:36 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Conclusion and Notice to nominees/ Was IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> Message-ID: Thank you Sala, for the update. May I also join you in tell our America Friends and Fellows " Happy Thanksgiving". Keep being strong as I have always known. Best regards Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Having landed yesterday and still recovering from some jet lag, I am now > attending to some urgent Caucus matters. Firstly, Happy thanksgiving to all > our American colleagues on this list and we have much to be thankful for. > > NomCom MAG candidates and volunteers > > Many thanks for your willingness to participate and offer your services. > We remain grateful and thankful that you were willing to put yourself out > there. There will be many more opportunities in the future. To those who > were selected by the NomCom, congratulations. > > Whilst we will put your names forward as IGC Nominees, I ask that if and > when you do get selected to the MAG to not forget communicating with > diverse civil society networks, keep them updated and involved just as > others who have gone before you have been doing. Remember that as voices in > the MAG you carry a stewardship role of stewarding diverse civil society > voices into the MAG. > > As you fill in your forms to send to the IGF Secretariat, please use this > contact address: > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > Email: coordinators at igcaucus.org > Tel: +679 9982851 > > > NomCom Results and Work > > Special thanks to NomCom Non Voting Chair, Ian Peter and voting members > Deirdre Williams, Kerry Brown, Shaila Mistry, David Cake and Jefsey > Morfin for the absolutely stellar work in making the selection, liaising > with candidates for information and coming to a conclusion. I officially > acknowledge receipt of the list of Nominees which will be sent to the IGF > Secretariat before 1 December, 2013 via a letter from the IGC. > > I can confirm that the coordinators did not interfere with the selection > process in anyway both on list and Offlist. Special thanks to Norbert who > ran the random selection process by which the names for the NomCom were > drawn. > > Again, I echo the voices of those who have already commented on Ian > Peter's Report. Many thanks! Job superbly executed and the community > remains indebted. > > Kind Regards, > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > (co-coordinator) > > Sent from my iPad > > On Nov 27, 2013, at 10:20 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > > > I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by > Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder > Advisory Group (MAG). > > > > > > RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma > > Bertrand de la Chappelle > > Stuart Hamilton > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Matthew Shears > > Mawaki Chango > > > > The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in > support of their nominations by filling in the form at > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies > should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight > timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat > > > > > > > > CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen > William Drake > Izumi Aizu > Fatima Cambronero > > > > > > NOMCOM MEMBERS > > > > The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection > process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were > > Deirdre Williams > > Kerry Brown > > Shaila Mistry > > David Cake > > Jefsey Morfin > > > > Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. > > > > PROCESS > > Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for > nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to encourage > more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive > nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. > > The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one > nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) > > Nnenna Nwakanma * > > Bertrand de la Chappelle* > > Stuart Hamilton* > > Sonigitu Ekpe* > > Matthew Shears* > > Mawaki Chango* > > Mishi Choudhary > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > > > > The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, > asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for > endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before > our emails) > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen * > William Drake * > Izumi Aizu * > Fatima Cambronero * > Lillian Nalwoga > > > > In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our > recommendations. > > > > PROCESS > > > > The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and > advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The Nomcom > then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and > 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria > below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 against > each criteria. > > No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria > was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for > candidates against other criteria were compiled) > > Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection > only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They did > serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who > were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and > whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly > with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. > > 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) > 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the > IGC (8) > 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote > participation (6.5) > 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) > 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives > held by civil society.(8.5) > 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute > constructively to MAG deliberations (9) > 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including > the IGC on issues and progress (8) > > 8. Gender and geographic balance > > All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the > candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an > exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. > > Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate > reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come to > a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment that > the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving > balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more > candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been very > welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under > which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had the > co –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the > Nomcom was being formed. > > I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated > work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess > candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your > behalf. > > > > Ian Peter > > Non voting chair > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 29 02:44:47 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:44:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Conclusion and Notice to nominees/ Was IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> Message-ID: Thank you Sala for the Update. May, I also join you in telling our America Friends and Fellows "Happy Thanksgiving". Keep being strong as I have known you. Best regards. Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Having landed yesterday and still recovering from some jet lag, I am now > attending to some urgent Caucus matters. Firstly, Happy thanksgiving to all > our American colleagues on this list and we have much to be thankful for. > > NomCom MAG candidates and volunteers > > Many thanks for your willingness to participate and offer your services. > We remain grateful and thankful that you were willing to put yourself out > there. There will be many more opportunities in the future. To those who > were selected by the NomCom, congratulations. > > Whilst we will put your names forward as IGC Nominees, I ask that if and > when you do get selected to the MAG to not forget communicating with > diverse civil society networks, keep them updated and involved just as > others who have gone before you have been doing. Remember that as voices in > the MAG you carry a stewardship role of stewarding diverse civil society > voices into the MAG. > > As you fill in your forms to send to the IGF Secretariat, please use this > contact address: > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > Email: coordinators at igcaucus.org > Tel: +679 9982851 > > > NomCom Results and Work > > Special thanks to NomCom Non Voting Chair, Ian Peter and voting members > Deirdre Williams, Kerry Brown, Shaila Mistry, David Cake and Jefsey > Morfin for the absolutely stellar work in making the selection, liaising > with candidates for information and coming to a conclusion. I officially > acknowledge receipt of the list of Nominees which will be sent to the IGF > Secretariat before 1 December, 2013 via a letter from the IGC. > > I can confirm that the coordinators did not interfere with the selection > process in anyway both on list and Offlist. Special thanks to Norbert who > ran the random selection process by which the names for the NomCom were > drawn. > > Again, I echo the voices of those who have already commented on Ian > Peter's Report. Many thanks! Job superbly executed and the community > remains indebted. > > Kind Regards, > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > (co-coordinator) > > Sent from my iPad > > On Nov 27, 2013, at 10:20 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > > > I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by > Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder > Advisory Group (MAG). > > > > > > RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma > > Bertrand de la Chappelle > > Stuart Hamilton > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Matthew Shears > > Mawaki Chango > > > > The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in > support of their nominations by filling in the form at > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies > should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight > timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat > > > > > > > > CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen > William Drake > Izumi Aizu > Fatima Cambronero > > > > > > NOMCOM MEMBERS > > > > The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection > process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were > > Deirdre Williams > > Kerry Brown > > Shaila Mistry > > David Cake > > Jefsey Morfin > > > > Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. > > > > PROCESS > > Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for > nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to encourage > more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive > nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. > > The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one > nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) > > Nnenna Nwakanma * > > Bertrand de la Chappelle* > > Stuart Hamilton* > > Sonigitu Ekpe* > > Matthew Shears* > > Mawaki Chango* > > Mishi Choudhary > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > > > > The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, > asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for > endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before > our emails) > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen * > William Drake * > Izumi Aizu * > Fatima Cambronero * > Lillian Nalwoga > > > > In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our > recommendations. > > > > PROCESS > > > > The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and > advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The Nomcom > then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and > 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria > below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 against > each criteria. > > No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria > was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for > candidates against other criteria were compiled) > > Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection > only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They did > serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who > were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and > whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly > with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. > > 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) > 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the > IGC (8) > 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote > participation (6.5) > 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) > 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives > held by civil society.(8.5) > 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute > constructively to MAG deliberations (9) > 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including > the IGC on issues and progress (8) > > 8. Gender and geographic balance > > All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the > candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an > exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. > > Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate > reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come to > a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment that > the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving > balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more > candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been very > welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under > which we operated – however, it would have been even more limited had the > co –coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the > Nomcom was being formed. > > I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated > work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess > candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your > behalf. > > > > Ian Peter > > Non voting chair > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Nov 29 05:04:20 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:04:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Conclusion and Notice to nominees/ Was IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> Message-ID: <529866A4.6020702@apc.org> Thanks for update Sala, and thanks very much to Ian and the Noncom for their work and commitment. Anriette > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > Dear All, > > Having landed yesterday and still recovering from some jet lag, I > am now attending to some urgent Caucus matters. Firstly, Happy > thanksgiving to all our American colleagues on this list and we > have much to be thankful for. > > NomCom MAG candidates and volunteers > > Many thanks for your willingness to participate and offer your > services. We remain grateful and thankful that you were willing to > put yourself out there. There will be many more opportunities in > the future. To those who were selected by the NomCom, > congratulations. > > Whilst we will put your names forward as IGC Nominees, I ask that > if and when you do get selected to the MAG to not forget > communicating with diverse civil society networks, keep them > updated and involved just as others who have gone before you have > been doing. Remember that as voices in the MAG you carry a > stewardship role of stewarding diverse civil society voices into > the MAG. > > As you fill in your forms to send to the IGF Secretariat, please > use this contact address: > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > Email: coordinators at igcaucus.org > Tel: +679 9982851 > > > NomCom Results and Work > > Special thanks to NomCom Non Voting Chair, Ian Peter and voting > members Deirdre Williams, Kerry Brown, Shaila Mistry, David Cake > and Jefsey Morfin for the absolutely stellar work in making the > selection, liaising with candidates for information and coming to > a conclusion. I officially acknowledge receipt of the list of > Nominees which will be sent to the IGF Secretariat before 1 > December, 2013 via a letter from the IGC. > > I can confirm that the coordinators did not interfere with the > selection process in anyway both on list and Offlist. Special > thanks to Norbert who ran the random selection process by which > the names for the NomCom were drawn. > > Again, I echo the voices of those who have already commented on > Ian Peter's Report. Many thanks! Job superbly executed and the > community remains indebted. > > Kind Regards, > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > (co-coordinator) > > Sent from my iPad > > On Nov 27, 2013, at 10:20 PM, "Ian Peter" > wrote: > >> >> >> I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom >> formed by Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the >> IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). >> >> >> >> >> >> RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS >> >> >> >> Nnenna Nwakanma >> >> Bertrand de la Chappelle >> >> Stuart Hamilton >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe >> >> Matthew Shears >> >> Mawaki Chango >> >> >> >> The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information >> in support of their nominations by filling in the form at >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. >> Copies should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given >> the tight timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to >> the IGF Secretariat >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION >> >> >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> William Drake >> Izumi Aizu >> Fatima Cambronero >> >> >> >> >> >> NOMCOM MEMBERS >> >> >> >> The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random >> selection process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were >> >> Deirdre Williams >> >> Kerry Brown >> >> Shaila Mistry >> >> David Cake >> >> Jefsey Morfin >> >> >> >> Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. >> >> >> >> PROCESS >> >> Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called >> for nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In >> order to encourage more nominations, the Nomcom announced it >> would continue to receive nominations until midnight UTC Thursday >> November 21. >> >> The following nominations were received within the advertised >> period (one nomination was less than an hour late and was >> accepted by the Nomcom) >> >> Nnenna Nwakanma * >> >> Bertrand de la Chappelle* >> >> Stuart Hamilton* >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe* >> >> Matthew Shears* >> >> Mawaki Chango* >> >> Mishi Choudhary >> Asif Kabani >> Rudi Vansnick >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> >> >> The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the >> MAG, asking whether they would like their names to be put forward >> for endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from >> (some before our emails) >> >> >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen * >> William Drake * >> Izumi Aizu * >> Fatima Cambronero * >> Lillian Nalwoga >> >> >> >> In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are >> our recommendations. >> >> >> >> PROCESS >> >> >> >> The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after >> discussion, and advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are >> mentioned below. The Nomcom then weighted all criteria in >> importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and 10 to each >> criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria >> below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 >> against each criteria. >> >> No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this >> criteria was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted >> average scores for candidates against other criteria were compiled) >> >> Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to >> selection only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight >> time frames. They did serve to make clear some candidates who >> were clearly favoured, some who were not, but did leave a group >> in the middle whose scores were close and whose credentials for >> inclusion were then compared further, particularly with >> intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. >> >> 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the >> IGC (6) >> 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks >> including the IGC (8) >> 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote >> participation (6.5) >> 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) >> 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and >> perspectives >> held by civil society.(8.5) >> 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to >> contribute constructively to MAG deliberations (9) >> 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks >> including the IGC on issues and progress (8) >> >> 8. Gender and geographic balance >> >> All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the >> candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all >> candidates, an exceptionally good result given the tight >> timeframes involved. >> >> Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final >> slate reflecting as best possible some natural differences of >> emphasis to come to a mutual recommendation. Several members >> expressed some disappointment that the range and communicated >> attributes of those nominated made achieving balance very >> difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more >> candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have >> been very welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very >> limited timeframe under which we operated – however, it would >> have been even more limited had the co –coordinators not taken >> the initiative to call for candidates while the Nomcom was being >> formed. >> >> I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their >> dedicated work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria >> and assess candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did >> good work on your behalf. >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> Non voting chair >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bavouc at gmail.com Fri Nov 29 05:56:34 2013 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Martial Bavou) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 11:56:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Conclusion and Notice to nominees/ Was IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> Message-ID: Happy thanksgiving, enjoy you black friday From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Sonigitu Ekpe Sent: vendredi 29 novembre 2013 08:40 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Cc: Ian Peter; IGC Coordinators Subject: Re: [governance] Conclusion and Notice to nominees/ Was IGC Nomcom results and final report Thank you Sala, for the update. May I also join you in tell our America Friends and Fellows " Happy Thanksgiving". Keep being strong as I have always known. Best regards Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: Dear All, Having landed yesterday and still recovering from some jet lag, I am now attending to some urgent Caucus matters. Firstly, Happy thanksgiving to all our American colleagues on this list and we have much to be thankful for. NomCom MAG candidates and volunteers Many thanks for your willingness to participate and offer your services. We remain grateful and thankful that you were willing to put yourself out there. There will be many more opportunities in the future. To those who were selected by the NomCom, congratulations. Whilst we will put your names forward as IGC Nominees, I ask that if and when you do get selected to the MAG to not forget communicating with diverse civil society networks, keep them updated and involved just as others who have gone before you have been doing. Remember that as voices in the MAG you carry a stewardship role of stewarding diverse civil society voices into the MAG. As you fill in your forms to send to the IGF Secretariat, please use this contact address: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Email: coordinators at igcaucus.org Tel: +679 9982851 NomCom Results and Work Special thanks to NomCom Non Voting Chair, Ian Peter and voting members Deirdre Williams, Kerry Brown, Shaila Mistry, David Cake and Jefsey Morfin for the absolutely stellar work in making the selection, liaising with candidates for information and coming to a conclusion. I officially acknowledge receipt of the list of Nominees which will be sent to the IGF Secretariat before 1 December, 2013 via a letter from the IGC. I can confirm that the coordinators did not interfere with the selection process in anyway both on list and Offlist. Special thanks to Norbert who ran the random selection process by which the names for the NomCom were drawn. Again, I echo the voices of those who have already commented on Ian Peter's Report. Many thanks! Job superbly executed and the community remains indebted. Kind Regards, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro (co-coordinator) Sent from my iPad On Nov 27, 2013, at 10:20 PM, "Ian Peter" > wrote: I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom formed by Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS Nnenna Nwakanma Bertrand de la Chappelle Stuart Hamilton Sonigitu Ekpe Matthew Shears Mawaki Chango The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information in support of their nominations by filling in the form at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. Copies should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given the tight timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the IGF Secretariat CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION Anriette Esterhuysen William Drake Izumi Aizu Fatima Cambronero NOMCOM MEMBERS The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random selection process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were Deirdre Williams Kerry Brown Shaila Mistry David Cake Jefsey Morfin Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. PROCESS Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to encourage more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue to receive nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. The following nominations were received within the advertised period (one nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted by the Nomcom) Nnenna Nwakanma * Bertrand de la Chappelle* Stuart Hamilton* Sonigitu Ekpe* Matthew Shears* Mawaki Chango* Mishi Choudhary Asif Kabani Rudi Vansnick Imran Ahmed Shah Fouad Bajwa The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the MAG, asking whether they would like their names to be put forward for endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from (some before our emails) Anriette Esterhuysen * William Drake * Izumi Aizu * Fatima Cambronero * Lillian Nalwoga In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are our recommendations. PROCESS The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after discussion, and advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are mentioned below. The Nomcom then weighted all criteria in importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and 10 to each criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 against each criteria. No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this criteria was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted average scores for candidates against other criteria were compiled) Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to selection only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight time frames. They did serve to make clear some candidates who were clearly favoured, some who were not, but did leave a group in the middle whose scores were close and whose credentials for inclusion were then compared further, particularly with intentions to achieve better geographic and gender balance. 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including the IGC (8) 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote participation (6.5) 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives held by civil society.(8.5) 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute constructively to MAG deliberations (9) 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks including the IGC on issues and progress (8) 8. Gender and geographic balance All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all candidates, an exceptionally good result given the tight timeframes involved. Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final slate reflecting as best possible some natural differences of emphasis to come to a mutual recommendation. Several members expressed some disappointment that the range and communicated attributes of those nominated made achieving balance very difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have been very welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very limited timeframe under which we operated - however, it would have been even more limited had the co -coordinators not taken the initiative to call for candidates while the Nomcom was being formed. I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their dedicated work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria and assess candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did good work on your behalf. Ian Peter Non voting chair ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mshears at cdt.org Fri Nov 29 06:26:26 2013 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 11:26:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom results and final report In-Reply-To: References: <22BB57D163AE46A9B2E32F241415BD0B@Toshiba> Message-ID: <529879E2.3000707@cdt.org> I would also like to extend my thanks to the NomCom and all those who participated and contributed to the process. Matthew On 29/11/2013 03:52, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear NomCom and all, > > Thank you for the excellent work and outcome. Congratulartions for the > new candidates! > > Thank you also for your support for myself. > > I feel honored, and will do my best if selected again. > > best, > > izumi > > > > > 2013/11/27 Ian Peter > > > I am pleased to report the following results from the Nomcom > formed by Internet Governance Caucus to consider names for the IGF > Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). > > RECOMMENDED NEW MEMBERS > > Nnenna Nwakanma > > Bertrand de la Chappelle > > Stuart Hamilton > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Matthew Shears > > Mawaki Chango > > The above recommended candidates are asked to provide information > in support of their nominations by filling in the form at > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2012/MAG%202014%20template%20.rtf. > Copies should be sent urgently to the IGC co ordinators and given > the tight timeframe you may also wish to send copies direct to the > IGF Secretariat > > CURRENT MEMBERS ENDORSED TO CONTINUE AFTER ROTATION > > Anriette Esterhuysen > William Drake > Izumi Aizu > Fatima Cambronero > > NOMCOM MEMBERS > > The members of the Nomcom, elected by the usual IGC random > selection process from a pool of 25 volunteers, were > > Deirdre Williams > > Kerry Brown > > Shaila Mistry > > David Cake > > Jefsey Morfin > > Ian Peter was non-voting Chair. > > PROCESS > > Given the short time frame available, IGC Co-ordinators called for > nominations on line prior to the Nomcom being formed. In order to > encourage more nominations, the Nomcom announced it would continue > to receive nominations until midnight UTC Thursday November 21. > > The following nominations were received within the advertised > period (one nomination was less than an hour late and was accepted > by the Nomcom) > > Nnenna Nwakanma * > > Bertrand de la Chappelle* > > Stuart Hamilton* > > Sonigitu Ekpe* > > Matthew Shears* > > Mawaki Chango* > > Mishi Choudhary > Asif Kabani > Rudi Vansnick > Imran Ahmed Shah > Fouad Bajwa > > The Nomcom also emailed all existing civil society members of the > MAG, asking whether they would like their names to be put forward > for endorsement by the IGC Nomcom. Responses were received from > (some before our emails) > > Anriette Esterhuysen * > William Drake * > Izumi Aizu* > Fatima Cambronero * > Lillian Nalwoga > > In both categories, those with an asterisk after their name are > our recommendations. > > PROCESS > > The Nomcom decided on a set of Selection Criteria after > discussion, and advised these on the IGC list. The criteria are > mentioned below. The Nomcom then weighted all criteria in > importance ( giving a weighting between 1 and 10 to each > criteria). The weightings are in brackets after the criteria > below. Candidates were then scored with a score between 1 and 10 > against each criteria. > > No weightings applied to gender and geographic balance, as this > criteria was applied in arriving at a final slate after weighted > average scores for candidates against other criteria were compiled) > > Note: the scores against criteria were intended as a guide to > selection only, to bypass a lot of discussion in our very tight > time frames. They did serve to make clear some candidates who were > clearly favoured, some who were not, but did leave a group in the > middle whose scores were close and whose credentials for inclusion > were then compared further, particularly with intentions to > achieve better geographic and gender balance. > > 1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC (6) > 2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks > including the IGC (8) > 3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote > participation (6.5) > 4. Knowledge of the UN system (5) > 5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and > perspectives > held by civil society.(8.5) > 6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to > contribute constructively to MAG deliberations (9) > 7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks > including the IGC on issues and progress (8) > > 8. Gender and geographic balance > > All Nomcom members provided scores against at least some of the > candidates. 4 of 5 Nomcom members provided scores for all > candidates, an exceptionally good result given the tight > timeframes involved. > > Considering these scores, Nomcom members then decided on a final > slate reflecting as best possible some natural differences of > emphasis to come to a mutual recommendation. Several members > expressed some disappointment that the range and communicated > attributes of those nominated made achieving balance very > difficult. In particular, more women as candidates and more > candidates from regions we were not able to represent would have > been very welcome. This may partially be a factor of the very > limited timeframe under which we operated – however, it would have > been even more limited had the co –coordinators not taken the > initiative to call for candidates while the Nomcom was being formed. > > I must as non voting Chair thank the Nomcom members for their > dedicated work, a not inconsiderable effort to decide on criteria > and assess candidates in this limited timeframe. They really did > good work on your behalf. > > Ian Peter > > Non voting chair > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -- Matthew Shears Director and Representative Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org +44 (0) 771 247 2987 Skype: mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 29 06:34:52 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:34:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> Am Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:52:00 -0800 schrieb "michael gurstein" : > A belated reply, but I support the document (in the interests of > achieving a consensus perhaps it would be possible to fuzzify McTim's > point of disagreement--I've indicated one possibility on the pad) and > would ask that it move forward to some speedy conclusion and > distribution. Thanks Mike! The current text on the pad, which seems to be from you ("The Global Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired internationalization") is from my perspective a good choice. Greetings, Norbert > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert > Bollow Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 1:03 PM To: IGC > Subject: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for > the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet > Governance > > Dear all > > >From Carlos Afonso I have learned that it would be valuable at the > >present stage for civil society networks like the IGC to make > >statements in regard to the planned Global Multistakeholder Meeting > >aiming at ensuring that the process will be a genuinely open (in > >particular to all kinds of civil society perspectives) > >multistakeholder process -- similar to what APC has already > >emphasized in a recent statement. > > I've set up a pad with an initial draft: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil2014-process-objectives > > This initial text has been very significantly inspired by (and in > some parts in fact copied verbatim from) the relevant parts of APC's > statement (if these parts of the statement end up going through the > IGC consensus process unchanged, we should probably give explicit > credit in some way.) > > Here's a copy of this initial draft text: > > --snip----------------------------------------------------------------- > Statement of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus on Process > and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future > of Internet Governance > > As an international civil society network that has emerged from the > WSIS process, the Internet Governance Caucus sees the planned Global > Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance as a > huge opportunity. > > In order for this opportunity to be fully utilized and not wasted, we > urge the organizers to base the Global Meeting on a democratic > deliberative process. In particular, > > * Transparent, open, inclusive and participatory mechanisms must be > established for the involvement of the widest possible variety of > stakeholders, in the planning and organisation of the summit, from > its inception, both in regard to issues of processes and > substance. > > * Participation in the meeting should be linked to an online > consultation process similar to the one successfully employed by > Brazilian government and society to draft the “Marco Civil”, and > in the selection of participants preference should be given to people > and institutions who have participated actively in this online > process through making written submissions. This should be the > case for all the stakeholders, including governments. > > * Drafting groups responsible for capturing outputs should be > appointed prior to the event, and include representatives from a > wide variety of stakeholder groups. > > The Global Meeting should be focused on creating, through accountable > and transparent processes, concrete outcome documents in these two > main areas: > > 1) Internationalisation of ICANN and IANA: The Global Meeting should > aim at develping a concrete solution how the desired > internationalization can be achieved. > > 2) An international set of principles (or a civil framework) for > internet policy making that are fully harmonised with existing human > rights agreements, especially in regard to ensuring in the context of > Internet communications and cloud computing that any exceptions to > the "right to privacy" and "right to anonymity" principles are > necessary and proportionate. > --snap----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Are you in support of IGC making such a statement? > > Do you see needs for changes? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Nov 29 07:07:04 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:07:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Am Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:52:00 -0800 > schrieb "michael gurstein" : > > > A belated reply, but I support the document (in the interests of > > achieving a consensus perhaps it would be possible to fuzzify McTim's > > point of disagreement--I've indicated one possibility on the pad) and > > would ask that it move forward to some speedy conclusion and > > distribution. > > Thanks Mike! > > The current text on the pad, which seems to be from you ("The Global > Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means > to achieve the desired internationalization") is from my perspective a > good choice. > It also works for me! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Nov 29 07:25:19 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:55:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as received In-Reply-To: <271804DEC3234754AF7B44F1CEA809C7@Toshiba> References: <0f7b01cee6c2$b3c32e40$1b498ac0$@gmail.com> <29CFA8BA-3700-42B5-AC45-6201685DD3D6@ciroap.org> <20131125194552.6adc61ca@quill> <52982A4B.8030001@ciroap.org> <271804DEC3234754AF7B44F1CEA809C7@Toshiba> Message-ID: To avoid confusion, can we maybe rename the Joint Steering Committee into the Joint Coordination Committee? Seems to fit more closely with its purpose. And I agree that in the future it would be good if we could use a Joint Nom Com procedure of the kind earlier suggested by Norbert - though I recognise that timelines madie it impossible to do so in this occasion. Best, Anja Thoug On 29 November 2013 11:28, Ian Peter wrote: > all I would add Adam was that by the time all names had been gathered > from multiple lists we had less than 48 hours to arrive at combined names > to meet the deadline – the London meeting is only 2 weeks away. So this > called for a pretty quick methodology. (and this at a time when people were > travelling from ICANN meetings etc and working through time zones). > > I should add that in addition to the two candidates mentioned we will be > arguing strongly for Jovan to also be included as an independent > facilitator. > > Our other option in the time frame, I think, was to do nothing. > > I should add that Anriette was not involved in any decision to include her > name. That was a unanimous decision from others who participated. > > Yes, an imperfect process. But one that gave us good well supported names > in a very limited timeframe. > > Ian > > > > *From:* Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 4:46 PM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as > received > > Moving Adam Peake's question from another thread: > > I have a concern. But first could you please explain who was involved in the selection process, who from which organizations, what criteria considered, who were the candidates considered. > > > Also cc'ing the governance list, because this is not a Best Bits-specific > issue (the new joint civil society committee is *not* a Best Bits > committee, I've merely been put forward as the liaison from Best Bits to > sit on it). > > So who was involved in the selection process? Everyone who has been > involved in discussions in the networks that are on the steering > committee. The liaisons from each network have been passing those > discussions on. Who are those liaisons? One from each of the civil > society networks that is currently on the joint committee, viz. Sala (and > formerly Norbert) from IGC, Robin Gross from NCSG, myself from Best Bits, > Ginger Paque from Diplo, Anriette from APC and Ian Peter as an independent > chair. > > Those members are not set in stone, they just volunteered to fill an > urgent need for a way of nominating civil society representatives to > various processes jointly. We are going to be suggesting, and opening for > discussion, some criteria for other groups to join. Other groups who > already expressed interest are Michael Gurstein on behalf of his community > informatics network, and the Internet Rights and Principles coalition. But > meanwhile, we have put aside further process-tweaking in order to deal with > the urgent task at hand. > > As for what criteria and what candidates were considered, there is a > thread on this with discussion back and forth, and it would take some time > to go back and summarize it. But amongst the candidates considered were: > > - William Drake > - Valeria Betancourt > - Anriette Esterhuysen > - Vladimir Radunovik > - Michael Gurstein > - Thomas Lowenhaupt > - Grace Githaiga > - Nnenna Nwakanma > - Avri Doria > - Jeanette Hoffman > - Milton Mueller > - Stephanie Perrin > - Tara Taubman > - Judy Okite > - Anju Magnal > - Jovan Kurbalija > > The main criterion was how much support existed within the individual > networks that had put forward the names in question. Also considered > important was that there should be at least one person who can represent > internal ICANN issues, and one person to represent wider issues. The > candidates should also have been involved with the communities that were > nominating them. > > That's about all that I have to say for now. Ian, as the independent > chair, may wish to address any further questions that you might have. > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers 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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Nov 29 07:45:45 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:45:45 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as received In-Reply-To: References: <0f7b01cee6c2$b3c32e40$1b498ac0$@gmail.com> <29CFA8BA-3700-42B5-AC45-6201685DD3D6@ciroap.org> <20131125194552.6adc61ca@quill> <52982A4B.8030001@ciroap.org> <271804DEC3234754AF7B44F1CEA809C7@Toshiba> Message-ID: <0F7E8A8A-E7F8-4254-B0FD-735C7479C3A2@ciroap.org> On 29 Nov 2013, at 8:25 pm, Anja Kovacs wrote: > To avoid confusion, can we maybe rename the Joint Steering Committee into the Joint Coordination Committee? Seems to fit more closely with its purpose. I still like nominating committee, but coordination committee is also fine. Also we should maybe refocus it on making joint nominations, rather than writing letters. Unlike the joint nominations, writing joint letters is not a gap that needed filling. We can, and do, already do that without a new joint committee - indeed the Best Bits platform has already been used for exactly that sort of thing. Clearly the two letters that I passed on this morning were a bit off. Due to my self-imposed email exile which finished last night they were already finalised when I first saw them, and not wanting to rock the boat when there was pressure to issue them immediately, I only suggested one or two tweaks. However I had picked up the same points as you and agree with them... we should not send them as they are. Ian is now offline until the morning and has asked that the letters go out as-is, but clearly this isn't wise and I'm going to try to touch base with the others and suggest we hold off, at least on the letters if not on passing on the candidates' names. If the committee does suggest letters in the future, this should be done through one of the existing networks with a proper and inclusive consultative process of an adequate duration. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 29 08:14:04 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 14:14:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Formation of a joint steering Committee - as received In-Reply-To: <0F7E8A8A-E7F8-4254-B0FD-735C7479C3A2@ciroap.org> References: <0f7b01cee6c2$b3c32e40$1b498ac0$@gmail.com> <29CFA8BA-3700-42B5-AC45-6201685DD3D6@ciroap.org> <20131125194552.6adc61ca@quill> <52982A4B.8030001@ciroap.org> <271804DEC3234754AF7B44F1CEA809C7@Toshiba> <0F7E8A8A-E7F8-4254-B0FD-735C7479C3A2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20131129141404.1d4cf69a@quill> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29 Nov 2013, at 8:25 pm, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > > > To avoid confusion, can we maybe rename the Joint Steering > > Committee into the Joint Coordination Committee? Seems to fit more > > closely with its purpose. > > > I still like nominating committee, but coordination committee is also > fine. I think that "coordination committee" is a much better name because it avoids confusion with the NomCom process. That said, I would reiterate my proposal that this joint committee could proceed to organize a Joint NomCom. There's this unfortunate tendency of selection tasks to come up so suddenly that there is not enough time to start setting up a NomCom then. So why not organize a Joint NomCom process so that there will always be a NomCom ready to work on whatever selection task may come up? Each NomCom's mandate could be say for all selection tasks that come up during a two months window starting from the day that that NomCom first starts on something. Those two months would be enough time to have another NomCom ready at the end of those two months. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 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 nnenna75 at gmail.com Fri Nov 29 11:20:34 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:20:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC Message-ID: Just published here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/ N -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 29 11:53:16 2013 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:53:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider In-Reply-To: <1385553497.39194.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1385553497.39194.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: +1 *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2013/11/27 Nnenna > Dear Norbert, > > As at yesterday night, which was really early this morning, I was still > exchanging mails with you. I no longer speak a whole lot on this list for > some reasons that we have mentioned at one time or another: the > undermining, the attack, the heavy flow of email, some listers' overbearing > attitude etc > > It is true that so many things are wrong with the IGC list at the moment, > and we are all aware of it. Maybe we have not had the opportunity to say > it openly, but here are a few truths: > > 1. The IGC is the widest, oldest Civil Society network that has > followed the WSIS and the IG issues > 2. We have a history, of collaboration, of team work and of producing > joint actions > 3. We chose you and Sala. We did, because we felt you two are good, > qualified and have the personality to lead us > 4. Being the IGC Coordinator is not a small task, the proof is that > not many can/want to step into your shoes. > 5. We recognise that IGC Coordinatorship is tasking: time wise, > emotionally, physically, bandwidth wise, health wise and even financially. > > I have been on this list before it was created. When the caucus was > hosted elsewhere, before we ever drafted a charter... > > I'm somehow part of the silent majority and I'm happy to answer the > question "why are you no longer contributing to IGC?" if anybody asks me. > So on behlalf of some of the silent majority, who still believe in your > leadership, in your energy, who appreciate your contribution.. > > I ask that you reconsider. > > Thank you in advance. > > Nnenna > > @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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 29 12:52:37 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 06:52:37 +1300 Subject: [governance] Notice to the IGC (Norbert's Resignation) In-Reply-To: <20131127114307.7d9b8b0a@quill> References: <20131125235657.7c43b926@quill> <20131126185935.4b4b265e@quill> <4C31E068-5B06-4652-9B4F-1285422181AF@uzh.ch> <20131127114307.7d9b8b0a@quill> Message-ID: <603D75B5-7B55-435F-AD6E-ADB302B81C80@gmail.com> Dear All, I apologize for the delayed response as I had been in the air and amidst catching some much needed rest and checking my emails, I saw the resignation. This of course allows me the opportunity to address you on a few issues. Every former coordinator of the IGC knows that this is not your average community and the challenges that come with facilitating discussions, moderating dialogue and organizing functional advocacy can be strained given the many polarization's and dynamic voices who sometimes compete to be heard. There are many complex issues at stake. When the Pioneering members of the IGC got together to establish the IGC and create the Charter, they in no way envisioned the challenges that IGC would go through in years to come. There are many things that we as coordinators would love to do but the Charter is silent on a number of key administrative issues. However, I personally feel that diversity is a strength and we must learn to converse with those who have different ideas to us but at the same time we should not be badgering, domineering etc. The role of coordinators is challenging at best. I am sad at the timing particularly when we have tonnes to do and it's nearing Christmas and Brazil but I understand. If anything, I am exhausted too :( But we must plod on. It has been a pleasure working alongside you Norbert and carrying the load with you. You have made some very significant and substantial contribution not only to the IGC but to the wider global internet governance discussions. The session which you organised regarding MS Selection Processes on increasing accountability and transparency was somewhat futuristic and extremely relevant now. Your advocacy and leadership in the HTML5 is much appreciated. Your constant attempts to be inclusive is also the signature of authentic spirit of engagement and collaboration. Your unseen administration of technical matters in the IGC is also appreciated. Again, many thanks for your hard work! With every best wish, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Nov 27, 2013, at 11:43 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Dear all > > Hereby I announce my resignation from the role of IGC co-coordinator, > in protest of > > 1) The overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members. > > 2) The specific lack of constructive engagement in relation to recent > attempts at using the IGC statement drafting process (for example, > in the most recent attempt, the only reaction was an attempt to > undermine the stated purpose of the Brazil meeting, and when I tried > to have a constructive conversation about that point, the response > was in fact a personal attack). > > From this criticism of "lack of supportive attitude" I'd like to > explicitly exclude the "silent majority" (there's nothing wrong with > simply lurking) as well as everyone else to whom this criticism does > not apply, most but not all of them civil society people. Actually a > lot of people were seeking to be supportive (I'm sure that you know > who you are! And I hereby thank you!) but faced the same reality as I am > the there are obvious limits on how much can be done in a generally > hostile environment where the hostile attitudes are so deeply ingrained > that the attempt to enforce the posting rules triggers so much > obnoxiousness that the overall level of hostility increases rather than > decreases. > > In fact the number of people who were seeking to be supportive may well > exceed the number of people who together created what I've called "the > overall lack of supportive attitude among IGC members". The overall > attitude communicated by a group is not determined by how the majority > feel, but by what is most of the time being said and done, or not. > > As a point of accountability, I'm perfectly willing to answer any > questions that people may want to ask about my actions during the time > that I served as co-coordinator, as well as about the underlying > reasons, to the extent that such questions can be answered without > violating reasonable expectations of confidentiality (e.g. I'm still > not going to answer questions about he "private warnings" process). > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> Strange and confusing, indeed. >> The last line of the PR Newswire pieces on this panel (as per the URL >> forwarded initially) reads: "Additional members to be confirmed." And >> all what we hear next is "hurry up and give your blessing to the list >> of names that a handful number of us have _informally_ agreed on." >> One would have hoped that IGC co-cos would provide some feedback of >> the kind Bill just provided as well as the clarification he asked >> for. On the other hand, I can't even count how many times now I have >> read something like "we will set up a proper NomCom process" blah >> blah. It's not as if we've been busy doing some productive >> substantive work in IGC. Informal and ad hoc, that's how we roll >> these days across CS. >> >> For the two names that have been asked for, I'd suggest: >> 1) Milton Mueller >> 2) Your choice >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:10 PM, William Drake >> wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> When Fadi was told last weekend in BA that there had been >>> expressions of discontent on various IG lists about the lack of CS >>> representation, he said ok, send me a name from the community. I >>> didn’t understand this as an ironclad commitment that they’d >>> automatically appoint any name we provided, but rather as an >>> invitation to suggest someone we think would be good (on a panel of >>> CEOs and politicians). Now it’s been decided to demand that two >>> people be empaneled, and a widening search for names is underway. >>> Has anyone been in touch with Fadi or President Ilves to let them >>> know what we’re doing and get their reaction? As the first meeting >>> of the HLP is in two weeks, one imagines the planning is well >>> underway, so it would be good for them to know what to expect, >>> when…. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> Here's a quick update... >>> >>> So far, in addition the following have been suggested, some in >>> public postings, some privately: >>> >>> Anju Mangal, Grace Githaiga, Judy Okite, Nnenna Nwakanma, Michael >>> Gurstein, Thomas Lowenhaupt. >>> >>> I have written to each of them to enquire about their willingness to >>> serve on this "Panel". So far, Grace Githaiga, Michael Gurstein, >>> and Thomas Lowenhaupt have replied positively. >>> >>> Please note that the deadline for any additional suggestions is >>> rather soon. >>> >>> In regard to the question that has been raised about process: This >>> is right now an ad hoc process aimed at making --in a way that is >>> coordinated across civil society networks as well as we can in a >>> very tight timeframe-- a demand for increased civil society >>> representation on the "Panel on the Future of Global Internet >>> Cooperation"; this is not directly related to 1net nor to any of >>> the various committees that will need to be formed in view of the >>> Global Meeting in Brazil. I certainly hope that it will be possible >>> to set up a proper NomCom process for those selection tasks, and >>> that we'll find a way to do that in a way that is again coordinated >>> across civil society networks. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Am Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:56:57 +0100 >>> schrieb Norbert Bollow : >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> there is now an informal coordination group of some kind >>> (tentatively called "steering committee", although I expect that >>> that name will probably be changed) consisting of Anriette >>> Esterhuysen for APC, Jeremy Malcolm for BestBits, Robin Gross for >>> NCSG, Virginia Paque for DIPLO, myself for IGC, and Ian Peter as >>> facilitator. >>> >>> The most urgent issue is to demand better civil society >>> representation on the Panel on the Future of Global Internet >>> Cooperation" organized by ICANN [1]. >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-organizes-to-address-future-of-internet-governance-232274461.html >>> >>> The current idea is that we would jointly nominate two additional >>> civil society people for this panel. >>> >>> The following names have been suggested so far: >>> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen, Eben Moglen, Milton Mueller, Sean O'Siochru, >>> Valeria Betancourt, Vladimir Radunovik, William Drake. >>> >>> In view of the tight deadline, please provide any input that you >>> wish to be considered ASAP, at the latest by 23.00 UTC tomorrow >>> Tuesday which is about 24 hours from now.) >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> ********************************************************** >>> 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 (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), >>> 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 bavouc at gmail.com Fri Nov 29 12:56:27 2013 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Clement Martial Aboudem Bavou) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:56:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider In-Reply-To: <1385553497.39194.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1385553497.39194.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I agree with you Nnenna, also define myself as the "silent majority". Please kindly reconsider. Regards. Bavou Martial +237-77377965 From my HTC ONE S Smartphone Le 2013-11-27 12:58, "Nnenna" a écrit : > Dear Norbert, > > As at yesterday night, which was really early this morning, I was still > exchanging mails with you. I no longer speak a whole lot on this list for > some reasons that we have mentioned at one time or another: the > undermining, the attack, the heavy flow of email, some listers' overbearing > attitude etc > > It is true that so many things are wrong with the IGC list at the moment, > and we are all aware of it. Maybe we have not had the opportunity to say > it openly, but here are a few truths: > > 1. The IGC is the widest, oldest Civil Society network that has > followed the WSIS and the IG issues > 2. We have a history, of collaboration, of team work and of producing > joint actions > 3. We chose you and Sala. We did, because we felt you two are good, > qualified and have the personality to lead us > 4. Being the IGC Coordinator is not a small task, the proof is that > not many can/want to step into your shoes. > 5. We recognise that IGC Coordinatorship is tasking: time wise, > emotionally, physically, bandwidth wise, health wise and even financially. > > I have been on this list before it was created. When the caucus was > hosted elsewhere, before we ever drafted a charter... > > I'm somehow part of the silent majority and I'm happy to answer the > question "why are you no longer contributing to IGC?" if anybody asks me. > So on behlalf of some of the silent majority, who still believe in your > leadership, in your energy, who appreciate your contribution.. > > I ask that you reconsider. > > Thank you in advance. > > Nnenna > > @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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 29 13:06:50 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 07:06:50 +1300 Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider In-Reply-To: References: <1385553497.39194.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <51355FA5-BC73-439E-AC55-8C6DDB77B179@gmail.com> > Following from Nnenna's email, you can still reconsider and we can chalk this off to a sabbatical leave for two weeks? Humans need rest and sabbatical. > Le 2013-11-27 12:58, "Nnenna" a écrit : >> Dear Norbert, >> >> As at yesterday night, which was really early this morning, I was still exchanging mails with you. I no longer speak a whole lot on this list for some reasons that we have mentioned at one time or another: the undermining, the attack, the heavy flow of email, some listers' overbearing attitude etc >> >> It is true that so many things are wrong with the IGC list at the moment, and we are all aware of it. Maybe we have not had the opportunity to say it openly, but here are a few truths: >> The IGC is the widest, oldest Civil Society network that has followed the WSIS and the IG issues >> We have a history, of collaboration, of team work and of producing joint actions >> We chose you and Sala. We did, because we felt you two are good, qualified and have the personality to lead us >> Being the IGC Coordinator is not a small task, the proof is that not many can/want to step into your shoes. >> We recognise that IGC Coordinatorship is tasking: time wise, emotionally, physically, bandwidth wise, health wise and even financially. >> I have been on this list before it was created. When the caucus was hosted elsewhere, before we ever drafted a charter... >> >> I'm somehow part of the silent majority and I'm happy to answer the question "why are you no longer contributing to IGC?" if anybody asks me. >> So on behlalf of some of the silent majority, who still believe in your leadership, in your energy, who appreciate your contribution.. >> >> I ask that you reconsider. >> >> Thank you in advance. >> >> Nnenna >> >> @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 >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 29 14:27:58 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 11:27:58 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> Thanks for the pointer to this very interesting post Nnenna. Paul uses the term "Internet community" in several places and I'm curious what he means by it. I have a feeling that we may not all have a similar definition (or that our definitions are evolving) and that that might be one reason why our discussions often go off the rails-we have different conceptions of who the audience or target group is for various of the policy issues that we address from time to time. (I provided my own definition in my current blogpost , but I'm not sure that everyone here agrees with mine J and of course ISOC, ICANN, IETF also all use the term "Internet community" and if those folks also want to chime in it would be greatly appreciated. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:21 AM To: Governance; Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC Just published here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/ N[MG>] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Nov 29 14:28:57 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 7:07 AM To: Norbert Bollow Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] BMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Norbert Bollow > wrote: Am Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:52:00 -0800 schrieb "michael gurstein" >: > A belated reply, but I support the document (in the interests of > achieving a consensus perhaps it would be possible to fuzzify McTim's > point of disagreement--I've indicated one possibility on the pad) and > would ask that it move forward to some speedy conclusion and > distribution. Thanks Mike! The current text on the pad, which seems to be from you ("The Global Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired internationalization") is from my perspective a good choice. It also works for me! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Nov 29 14:52:13 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:52:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 schrieb Milton L Mueller : > Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family > holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word > "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in > a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not > an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national relations. On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. Maybe yet another term could be used??? 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Nov 29 15:50:48 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 07:50:48 +1100 Subject: [governance] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Message-ID: Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this meeting in two weeks time. Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would have been the alternative in this timeframe. Ian Peter 29 November 2013 RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London Dear Fadi and Nora: I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of representatives of the civil society networks most involved in Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide more balance. After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel. Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High Level Panel are: 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their participation? We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator. We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable representation of civil society in such panels and committees. Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from various civil society networks were: Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Signed, Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Fri Nov 29 15:52:04 2013 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 21:52:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> Message-ID: <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around. Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind. Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds. - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... All the best, __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 > schrieb Milton L Mueller : > >> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family >> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word >> "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in >> a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not >> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena > > That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their > governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has > certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global > phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of > decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is > happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national > relations. > > On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very > wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased > social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns > that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. > > Maybe yet another term could be used??? > > 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 nnenna75 at gmail.com Fri Nov 29 15:57:14 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:57:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Ian. Letter looks fine. And thanks to the team for giving time to this. Best to the nominees. N On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as an > independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this > meeting in two weeks time. > > Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was > imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the people > involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > > I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit names, > and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would have > been the alternative in this timeframe. > > > Ian Peter > > > 29 November 2013 > RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > > Dear Fadi and Nora: > > I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of > representatives of the > civil society networks most involved in Internet governance deliberations, > we appreciate your > willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of > Internet > governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is > under-represented on > your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil > society participants to > this panel to provide more balance. > After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2 > civil society > representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from > government, the > private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel. > Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High Level > Panel are: > 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) > 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) > Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and > contact our > representatives directly to arrange their participation? > We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo > Foundation as > a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator. > We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable > representation of civil > society in such panels and committees. > Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from various > civil society > networks were: > Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) > Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus > (IGC) > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > Signed, > Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From valeriab at apc.org Fri Nov 29 16:20:01 2013 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:20:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A6F20B8-1CB7-4874-811F-491CC6963EDE@apc.org> + 1 Valeria On 29/11/2013, at 15:57, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Thanks Ian. > > Letter looks fine. And thanks to the team for giving time to this. > Best to the nominees. > > N > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: > Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as > an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation > at this meeting in two weeks time. > > Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result > was imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, > the people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation > process. > > I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit > names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying > nothing would have been the alternative in this timeframe. > > > Ian Peter > > > 29 November 2013 > RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > > Dear Fadi and Nora: > > I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition > of representatives of the > civil society networks most involved in Internet governance > deliberations, we appreciate your > willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the > future of Internet > governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society > is under-represented on > your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional > civil society participants to > this panel to provide more balance. > After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the > following 2 civil society > representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers > from government, the > private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial > panel. > Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High > Level Panel are: > 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) > 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) > Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and > contact our > representatives directly to arrange their participation? > We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the > Diplo Foundation as > a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator. > We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more > equitable representation of civil > society in such panels and committees. > Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from > various civil society > networks were: > Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) > Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC) > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > Signed, > Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 29 16:59:05 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:59:05 +1300 Subject: [governance] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69F8AE53-478A-4845-892E-E3BB99922987@gmail.com> The HLLM is convened by the ICANN CEO who has control over whom he invites. It is unclear whether ICANN intends to have civil society represented, that is those from outside the ICANN community. Earlier messages from William Drake to this list suggested that only one slot was open even though some pushed for two slots. Some civil society Organizations demanded inclusion despite not being involved within the ICANN community. Any discussion in global circles purporting to be Multi stakeholder must also to some degree represent the community including those outside of ICANN. ICANN espouses Accountability and Transparency and takes great pride in doing so. I suspect that the At Large community within ICANN will be filling one civil society slot and the other tossed to us. The seats may already be filled. However, Robin from ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group which is the arm in ICANN that carries civil society voices has been liaising with ICANN CEO. The reality is that they may even reject both the names that was furnished to them. The ratio of public sector, private sector and civil society is not balanced as it currently is. There were many names for consideration but after careful dialogue amongst the different groups, two names that received overwhelming support were Anriette and Milton. They will steward the views of global civil society as they dialogue. we wish them well should they choose to accept the responsibility. Whilst this HLLM is underway, what are your thoughts about potentially convening a High Level Meeting where we can have more diverse inclusion of civil society, business constituency, technical constituency, governments and intergovernmental organisations etc. If there is interest, it could be facilitated by a widely respected neutral facilitator like Jovan Kurbalija of Diplo Foundation. The meeting could be jointly convened by an organising committee that represents civil society, technical community, business community, governments etc. I am aware that the HLLM is "ICANN owned" and driven. If they only give us one seat or two to comfort us, we should seriously consider the possibilities of organising our own High Level Meeting that is Inclusive, Collaborative and allows for dynamic discussion to take place. In fairness to ICANN, the HLLM is part of an internal process designed to discuss strategies pertaining to ICANN's mandate. If there is appetite to do this, we can certainly consider working towards achieving this prior to Brazil. This does not have to be a complex affair but a simple meeting that can be globally streamed into where there is a social media strategy to monitor the input and more importantly where views can be heard. In turn, this can be consolidated for retroactive engagement with communities on the ground until we have a sound document that is both grassroots and community driven. I believe that amongst the civil society organizations, we are networked enough to pull this off. Alternatively another model could be used where we keep the discussions regionally and allow for the dialogue to take place in each region. Some of the discussions are important to have but I do not see why we should be hurried by the Brazilian timeline. This is not to say that the IGC will not be contributing to the discussions as we will. There are clearly many concerns that the wider community has and these issues need to be aired in relevant and appropriate forums. In the not too distant future, the IGC will be invited to start preparing its submissions for Brazil on wide and diverse areas pertaining to Internet Governance. Keep watching the space. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Nov 30, 2013, at 9:50 AM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this meeting in two weeks time. > > Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > > I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would have been the alternative in this timeframe. > > > Ian Peter > > > 29 November 2013 > RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > > Dear Fadi and Nora: > > I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of representatives of the > civil society networks most involved in Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your > willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet > governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is under-represented on > your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil society participants to > this panel to provide more balance. > After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2 civil society > representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from government, the > private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel. > Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High Level Panel are: > 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) > 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) > Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and contact our > representatives directly to arrange their participation? > We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo Foundation as > a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator. > We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable representation of civil > society in such panels and committees. > Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from various civil society > networks were: > Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) > Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > Signed, > Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Fri Nov 29 17:10:58 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 22:10:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <69F8AE53-478A-4845-892E-E3BB99922987@gmail.com> References: <69F8AE53-478A-4845-892E-E3BB99922987@gmail.com> Message-ID: There has been a hint that Civil Society may want to take the opportunity of RightsCon. http://www.rightscon.org/ What do you think? N On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > The HLLM is convened by the ICANN CEO who has control over whom he > invites. It is unclear whether ICANN intends to have civil society > represented, that is those from outside the ICANN community. Earlier > messages from William Drake to this list suggested that only one slot was > open even though some pushed for two slots. Some civil society > Organizations demanded inclusion despite not being involved within the > ICANN community. > > Any discussion in global circles purporting to be Multi stakeholder must > also to some degree represent the community including those outside of > ICANN. ICANN espouses Accountability and Transparency and takes great pride > in doing so. I suspect that the At Large community within ICANN will be > filling one civil society slot and the other tossed to us. The seats may > already be filled. > > However, Robin from ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group which is the > arm in ICANN that carries civil society voices has been liaising with ICANN > CEO. > > The reality is that they may even reject both the names that was furnished > to them. The ratio of public sector, private sector and civil society is > not balanced as it currently is. > > There were many names for consideration but after careful dialogue amongst > the different groups, two names that received overwhelming support were > Anriette and Milton. They will steward the views of global civil society as > they dialogue. we wish them well should they choose to accept the > responsibility. > > Whilst this HLLM is underway, what are your thoughts about potentially > convening a High Level Meeting where we can have more diverse inclusion of > civil society, business constituency, technical constituency, governments > and intergovernmental organisations etc. If there is interest, it could be > facilitated by a widely respected neutral facilitator like Jovan Kurbalija > of Diplo Foundation. > > The meeting could be jointly convened by an organising committee that > represents civil society, technical community, business community, > governments etc. I am aware that the HLLM is "ICANN owned" and driven. If > they only give us one seat or two to comfort us, we should seriously > consider the possibilities of organising our own High Level Meeting that is > Inclusive, Collaborative and allows for dynamic discussion to take place. > In fairness to ICANN, the HLLM is part of an internal process designed to > discuss strategies pertaining to ICANN's mandate. > > If there is appetite to do this, we can certainly consider working towards > achieving this prior to Brazil. This does not have to be a complex affair > but a simple meeting that can be globally streamed into where there is a > social media strategy to monitor the input and more importantly where views > can be heard. In turn, this can be consolidated for retroactive engagement > with communities on the ground until we have a sound document that is both > grassroots and community driven. I believe that amongst the civil society > organizations, we are networked enough to pull this off. > > Alternatively another model could be used where we keep the discussions > regionally and allow for the dialogue to take place in each region. > > Some of the discussions are important to have but I do not see why we > should be hurried by the Brazilian timeline. This is not to say that the > IGC will not be contributing to the discussions as we will. There are > clearly many concerns that the wider community has and these issues need to > be aired in relevant and appropriate forums. > > In the not too distant future, the IGC will be invited to start preparing > its submissions for Brazil on wide and diverse areas pertaining to Internet > Governance. > > Keep watching the space. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Nov 30, 2013, at 9:50 AM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as an > independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this > meeting in two weeks time. > > Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was > imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the people > involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > > I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit names, > and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would have > been the alternative in this timeframe. > > > Ian Peter > > > 29 November 2013 > RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > > Dear Fadi and Nora: > > I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of > representatives of the > civil society networks most involved in Internet governance deliberations, > we appreciate your > willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of > Internet > governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is > under-represented on > your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil > society participants to > this panel to provide more balance. > After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2 > civil society > representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from > government, the > private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel. > Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High Level > Panel are: > 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) > 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) > Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and > contact our > representatives directly to arrange their participation? > We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo > Foundation as > a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator. > We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable > representation of civil > society in such panels and committees. > Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from various > civil society > networks were: > Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) > Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus > (IGC) > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > Signed, > Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 29 17:38:47 2013 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:38:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". ------ Rgds, Tracy On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" < jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, > > If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and > in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the > reflection: > > *Internationalization*: one wants to have a larger international basis: > more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches > that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each > element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, > thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of > uniformity. *Meaning many little ICANNs all around. * > > *Globalization*: this could happen without a network of offices around > the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many > different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a > governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than > one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a > single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a > global manner of thinking. > *Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind.* > > *Transnationalization*: this tends to establish a community of people > based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, > interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, > regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an > understanding of global magnitude. > *Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds.* > > > - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over > the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global > minded outlet. Good communication value. > - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially > if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging > when one starts from a private or national basis. > - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in > the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and > ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. > > Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to > explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. > > Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate > objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the > corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would > convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, > politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable > definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something > that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... > > All the best, > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor in Chief > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > @jc_nothias > > > > > > > Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 > schrieb Milton L Mueller : > > Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family > > holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word > > "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in > > a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not > > an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena > > > That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their > governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has > certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global > phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of > decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is > happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national > relations. > > On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very > wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased > social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns > that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. > > Maybe yet another term could be used??? > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 29 17:41:10 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 04:11:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <293BC780-7CB5-4C26-A3F2-2E8570B7ABF6@hserus.net> Is this a hair that desperately needs splitting though? --srs (iPad) > On 30-Nov-2013, at 4:08, "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" wrote: > > ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. > > I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". > > ------ > Rgds, > > Tracy > > > >> On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: >> Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, >> >> If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: >> >> Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around. >> >> Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. >> Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind. >> >> Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. >> Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds. >> >> >> - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. >> - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. >> - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. >> >> Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. >> >> Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... >> >> All the best, >> >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe Nothias >> Editor in Chief >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >> @jc_nothias >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >>> >>> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 >>> schrieb Milton L Mueller : >>> >>>> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family >>>> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word >>>> "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in >>>> a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not >>>> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena >>> >>> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their >>> governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has >>> certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global >>> phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of >>> decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is >>> happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national >>> relations. >>> >>> On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very >>> wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased >>> social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns >>> that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. >>> >>> Maybe yet another term could be used??? >>> >>> 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 > s.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > iv> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 29 17:45:32 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 04:15:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> Not speaking for Paul but the definition of Internet community he appears to refer to is quite open, and more importantly, does not seek to specifically exclude particular classes of people or organizations. --srs (iPad) > On 30-Nov-2013, at 0:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Thanks for the pointer to this very interesting post Nnenna. > > Paul uses the term “Internet community” in several places and I’m curious what he means by it… > > I have a feeling that we may not all have a similar definition (or that our definitions are evolving) and that that might be one reason why our discussions often go off the rails—we have different conceptions of who the audience or target group is for various of the policy issues that we address from time to time. > > (I provided my own definition in my current blogpost, but I’m not sure that everyone here agrees with mine J and of course ISOC, ICANN, IETF also all use the term “Internet community” and if those folks also want to chime in it would be greatly appreciated. > > M > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:21 AM > To: Governance; > Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC > > > Just published here: > http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/ > > N[MG>] > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Fri Nov 29 19:10:07 2013 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 01:10:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Agree with you Tracy regarding the timely and appropriate recommendation. I was emphasizing that "globalization" would be quite a stretch for what is still the ICANN statUS-quo today. I do believe that "globalization" would mean much more than "internationalization", the latter meaning more or less a simple expansion (conquest...) One question though: is ICANN thinking of institutionalizing itself, or getting representative of more parties, or both? What's behind ICANN internationalization? I still wonder. Is this wording able to please/trap the multilateral layer of the IG, the nation states and the CS by the same token? Is this word used to give an institutional shine to ICANN, so to be seen as some kind of international organization (multilateral system). But then, if so, will ICANN use an empty concept such as "equal footing"? Equal footing sounds 'cool' but it's empty when it comes to decision making. It reminds me of the banlieue where kids tend to go into that kind of saying."Talk to me with respect! Yo, equal footing man!" I wonder about this "equal footing" and its libertarian, or anarchist flavour. Did the Bolsheviks spoke "equal footing"? Just kidding... More seriously, does this belong to the narrative of the ICANNista? "Equal footing" to do what, on behalf of who. Constituency? Constitution? Mandate? What's the haircut for the next ICANN? (Suresh: there are many different type of hairs and haircuts. One hair in a bowl of soup is sometimes uneasy to pick or split. But I agree with you, it is worst when one has un cheveu sur la langue. It gets really difficult to understand what the person* wants to say, unless one prefers not to be clearly understood.) All this is quite fascinating. To get down to a new Internet Governance - currently under way - some deconstruction is needed, at least when it comes to wording and meaning. JC *ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French persone, from Latin persona ‘actor's mask, character in a play,’ later ‘human being.’ Le 29 nov. 2013 à 23:38, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google a écrit : > ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. > > I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". > > ------ > Rgds, > > Tracy > > > On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: > Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, > > If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: > > Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around. > > Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. > Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind. > > Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. > Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds. > > > - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. > - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. > - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. > > Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. > > Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... > > All the best, > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor in Chief > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > @jc_nothias > > > > > > > Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > >> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 >> schrieb Milton L Mueller : >> >>> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family >>> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word >>> "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in >>> a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not >>> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena >> >> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their >> governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has >> certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global >> phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of >> decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is >> happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national >> relations. >> >> On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very >> wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased >> social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns >> that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. >> >> Maybe yet another term could be used??? >> >> 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Nov 29 19:48:47 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:48:47 -0800 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> What about 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". ------ Rgds, Tracy On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around. Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind. Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds. - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... All the best, __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 schrieb Milton L Mueller : Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national relations. On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. Maybe yet another term could be used??? 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 aizu at anr.org Fri Nov 29 20:06:41 2013 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:06:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider In-Reply-To: <1385553497.39194.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1385553497.39194.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Norbert and the list, I am somewhere in between silent majority and noisy minority ;-). Being the former co-co, I know how difficult to keep the caucus live, focused, friendly and relevant. No one can do the job that well. However, it is all up to the whole member, not the co-co to keep it like that. We deserve for what we do and we are. In any case, why don't you take a short rest, wait for the New year, and then make up your mind if you still have some hope (I hope so). izumi 2013/11/27 Nnenna > Dear Norbert, > > As at yesterday night, which was really early this morning, I was still > exchanging mails with you. I no longer speak a whole lot on this list for > some reasons that we have mentioned at one time or another: the > undermining, the attack, the heavy flow of email, some listers' overbearing > attitude etc > > It is true that so many things are wrong with the IGC list at the moment, > and we are all aware of it. Maybe we have not had the opportunity to say > it openly, but here are a few truths: > > 1. The IGC is the widest, oldest Civil Society network that has > followed the WSIS and the IG issues > 2. We have a history, of collaboration, of team work and of producing > joint actions > 3. We chose you and Sala. We did, because we felt you two are good, > qualified and have the personality to lead us > 4. Being the IGC Coordinator is not a small task, the proof is that > not many can/want to step into your shoes. > 5. We recognise that IGC Coordinatorship is tasking: time wise, > emotionally, physically, bandwidth wise, health wise and even financially. > > I have been on this list before it was created. When the caucus was > hosted elsewhere, before we ever drafted a charter... > > I'm somehow part of the silent majority and I'm happy to answer the > question "why are you no longer contributing to IGC?" if anybody asks me. > So on behlalf of some of the silent majority, who still believe in your > leadership, in your energy, who appreciate your contribution.. > > I ask that you reconsider. > > Thank you in advance. > > Nnenna > > @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 > > -- >> 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Nov 29 20:23:37 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:23:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias < jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote: > Agree with you Tracy regarding the timely and appropriate recommendation. > I was emphasizing that "globalization" would be quite a stretch for what is > still the ICANN statUS-quo today. > Which status quo is that? The one where the US gets to say what goes into the root? If so, you may want to ask Amazon, Patagonia and .gcc (amongst others) what is the current status quo. > I do believe that "globalization" would mean much more than > "internationalization", the latter meaning more or less a simple expansion > (conquest...) > > One question though: is ICANN thinking of institutionalizing itself, or > getting representative of more parties, or both? What's behind ICANN > internationalization? I still wonder. Is this wording able to please/trap > the multilateral layer of the IG, the nation states and the CS by the same > token? Is this word used to give an institutional shine to ICANN, so to be > seen as some kind of international organization (multilateral system). But > then, if so, will ICANN use an empty concept such as "equal footing"? Equal > footing sounds 'cool' but it's empty when it comes to decision making. > Actually it is not. There are some ICANN processes where decisions are still made in a process where everyone has the same voice, there is no voting, no representation, no silos. Everyone comes together on lists and in person to forge consensus. There is no possibility of the ICANN Board reversing these decisions, no political games from governments, etc. Truly multi-equal stakeholderism. -- 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 nashton at consensus.pro Fri Nov 29 20:49:59 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 07:34:59 +0545 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> Message-ID: For those interested in the subject of internationalisation of ICANN - and the broader subject of the types of structure one can use to incorporate governments and non-governments that doesn’t give governments the only governance seat at the table, ICANN had Hans Corell, the noted jurist, develop a report on the subject some years back. It is still quite relevant reading as food for thought. You can find it here. On 30 Nov 2013, at 06:33, michael gurstein wrote: > What about > > 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Cc: Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. > > I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". > > ------ > Rgds, > > Tracy > > > > On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: > Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, > > If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: > > Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around. > > Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. > Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind. > > Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. > Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds. > > > - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. > - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. > - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. > > Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. > > Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... > > All the best, > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor in Chief > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > @jc_nothias > > > > > > > Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 > schrieb Milton L Mueller : > > > Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family > holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word > "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in > a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not > an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena > > That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their > governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has > certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global > phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of > decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is > happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national > relations. > > On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very > wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased > social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns > that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. > > Maybe yet another term could be used??? > > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Fri Nov 29 22:02:01 2013 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:02:01 -0800 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/29/2013 05:49 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > For those interested in the subject of internationalisation of > ICANN - and the broader subject of the types of structure one can > use to incorporate governments and non-governments that doesn’t > give governments the only governance seat at the table, ICANN had > Hans Corell, the noted jurist, develop a report on the subject > some years back. It is still quite relevant reading as food for > thought. Through the haze of intervening years I do somewhat remember seeing this report, and others like it that may not yet be public. My feedback to ICANN at the time was that every one of these had its head in the clouds and rather forgot the practical issues that ICANN is an existing body that has money and property and sits atop a hierarchy of existing contracts. One can not simply transfer property, money, or contracts - at least not if one wants to avoid being accused of some modern form of the old crime/tort of "conversion". And particularly, a body such as ICANN that has received US and California tax protection for a decade and a half, is under a collection of restrictive laws and regulations about what it can do with its wealth and obligations. What always bothered me about much of this "internationalization" speculation is the presumption that the grass is greener outside of California and the USA. Being a resident of California and a citizen of the US my perspective is necessarily somewhat colored - but every one of us will have a similar tendency to prefer their own local place. I do not see much reality in the proposition that other locations are better or that ICANN will achieve greater transparency or accountability by relocating. And changing to something negotiated between governments... well, then ICANN will just become a new way to spell "ITU". ICANN's non-transparency and non-accountability is the work of ICANN itself. ICANN's non-transparency and non-accountability is not the result of its place of existence. ICANN itself chose to pretend that California laws did not obligate it to election of directors or many other forms of transparency and accountability. An ICANN in any other place will be just as willing to wrap itself with opaque veils and dig moats between itself and the community of internet users. It seems to me that as for ICANN that it really ought to live up to its obligations under California law, obligations that it has worked tirelessly to avoid: Here's a note on this topic that dates from nearly 14 years ago: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm#full-members When we look to the larger scope of internet governance rather than merely at ICANN we should remind ourselves that we have been far too lax about clearly defining the jobs that we want to be done. We should no build structure of governance without knowing quite clearly what we want it to do. If we took the time to recognize the jobs to be done we would recognize that many of those jobs are things that are non-contentious and essentially clerical in nature. For those kinds of things we can build tightly limited bodies that have little discretion and operate by a simple notice-and-comment process with appeal to a superior body for claims of abuse of discretion. There will be remaining issues that involve contentious issues for which we can design specific governance bodies. It is dangerous to build governance bodies that have multiple discretionary jobs. We can be certain that any governance body that has multiple roles will soon invent ways to dance between those roles to evade responsibility and accountability. --karl-- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEVAwUBUplVKY+L/4x4Esu3AQKIoQgAtJVzOm4ywSsPyARv3BMSHy/MLqJ5zZvD 7r2QBlU9xDBreiv3skT6CPFtYKbkxsZd8ZMJUjr4hHRcXLp/7/QA/KuFhx8XklGH /Qydrjwz51bDOFeC2Je50NGdbeUeLlNK+M4+PLtBFXvDidd7ZhL7TQ901kcEW17M 0JgQzvGlGuhpEneXAs1j2GfowplpnKeyQp2QlvQZhCwl84KLiEzdlyxfW18GbwKp KAEa2DHxWOd1UQvrS0h2u6y2R9OCVjowHWNYrmvd+GFJRSDQ6FiWvDo0GyyKt4wP B8C7Hs0dF4uIKQlzH/OHApWKYWd7IAcNjGAZ4pv+VzeC11SlXDTQuw== =hR4Y -----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 Fri Nov 29 22:37:07 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 03:37:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I like these distinctions and I think they are valid. However all three definitions overlook one of the most important aspects of the globalization or transnationalization of ICANN: the removal of the source of authority from a single national government and the linkage of its authority over the DNS root zone file to a global polity. --MM From: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal [mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net] Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 3:52 PM To: Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around. Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind. Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds. - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... All the best, __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 schrieb Milton L Mueller >: Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national relations. On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. Maybe yet another term could be used??? 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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Nov 29 23:24:30 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 04:24:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is counterproductive at this stage. Many people who have studied this issue believe that turning ICANN into an INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little accountability it currently has. Those willing to go along with a general call for reform in ICANN's US-centered oversight need not commit themselves to a particular solution at this point, and the language below does that. Please don't come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for this. It will take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' Cc: 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance What about 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". ------ Rgds, Tracy On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" > wrote: Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around. Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind. Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds. - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... All the best, __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 schrieb Milton L Mueller >: Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national relations. On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. Maybe yet another term could be used??? 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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Nov 29 23:35:04 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 04:35:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25740E6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Thank you, Karl. Right you are. -----Original Message----- My feedback to ICANN at the time was that every one of these had its head in the clouds and rather forgot the practical issues that ICANN is an existing body that has money and property and sits atop a hierarchy of existing contracts. One can not simply transfer property, money, or contracts - at least not if one wants to avoid being accused of some modern form of the old crime/tort of "conversion". -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 29 23:39:34 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:09:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <52996C06.305@itforchange.net> On Saturday 30 November 2013 09:07 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I like these distinctions and I think they are valid. However all > three definitions overlook one of the most important aspects of the > globalization or transnationalization of ICANN: the removal of the > source of authority from a single national government and the linkage > of its authority over the DNS root zone file to a global polity. > Agree, Milton... That is the primary issue... However, your/ IGP's proposal for internationalisation/trans-nationalisation leaves ICANN full subject to US laws, laws which are made by the US polity and can anyday be changed by it... Then how does it achieve the key objective that you state above. What kind of trans-nationalisation is it? I really dont understand your definition of 'global polity'. parminder > > --MM > > *From:*Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > [mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net] > *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 3:52 PM > *To:* Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives > for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet > Governance > > Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, > > If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, > and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the > pleasure of the reflection: > > *Internationalization*: one wants to have a larger international > basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local > branches that, being put together, creates an international network. > Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms > of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' > kind of uniformity. /Meaning many little ICANNs all around. / > > *Globalization*: this could happen without a network of offices around > the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many > different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet > with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit > more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many > voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one > point to the many in a global manner of thinking. > > /Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind./ > > *Transnationalization*: this tends to establish a community of people > based in various locations, trying to forget about their local > identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more > common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to > achieve an understanding of global magnitude. > > /Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds./ > > - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control > over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a > global minded outlet. Good communication value. > > - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, > specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. > Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. > > - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust > in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, > and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. > > Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to > explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. > > Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate > objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from > the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, > executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation > (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has > a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser > legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of > misunderstandings, deadlocks... > > All the best, > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor in Chief > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > > @jc_nothias > > > > > Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > > Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 > schrieb Milton L Mueller >: > > > Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big > family > > holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word > > "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we > live in > > a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" > is not > > an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena > > > That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their > governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has > certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global > phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of > decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is > happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national > relations. > > On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very > wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased > social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns > that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to > address. > > Maybe yet another term could be used??? > > 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Nov 29 23:49:41 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:49:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world Rafik 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller > No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is counterproductive at > this stage. Many people who have studied this issue believe that turning > ICANN into an INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little > accountability it currently has. Those willing to go along with a general > call for reform in ICANN’s US-centered oversight need not commit themselves > to a particular solution at this point, and the language below does that. > > > > Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for this. It will > take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. > > > > *From:* michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' > *Cc:* 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller > *Subject:* RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for > the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > What about > > > > 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International Non-Governmental > Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim at developing a > suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of > ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization > > > > M > > > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > *On Behalf Of *Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Cc:* Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller > *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for > the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several > opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and > thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is > significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of > what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. > > I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate > ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising > and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global > Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". > > ------ > Rgds, > > Tracy > > > > On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" < > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > > Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, > > > > If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and > in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the > reflection: > > > > *Internationalization*: one wants to have a larger international basis: > more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches > that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each > element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, > thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of > uniformity. *Meaning many little ICANNs all around. * > > > > *Globalization*: this could happen without a network of offices around > the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many > different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a > governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than > one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a > single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a > global manner of thinking. > > *Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind.* > > > > *Transnationalization*: this tends to establish a community of people > based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, > interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, > regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an > understanding of global magnitude. > > *Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds.* > > > > > > - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over > the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global > minded outlet. Good communication value. > > - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially > if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging > when one starts from a private or national basis. > > - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in > the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and > ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. > > > > Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to > explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. > > > > Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate > objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the > corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would > convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, > politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable > definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something > that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... > > > > All the best, > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor in Chief > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > > @jc_nothias > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > > Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 > schrieb Milton L Mueller : > > Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family > > holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word > > "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in > > a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not > > an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena > > > That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their > governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has > certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global > phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of > decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is > happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national > relations. > > On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very > wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased > social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns > that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. > > Maybe yet another term could be used??? > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 29 23:51:51 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:21:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25740E6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25740E6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <52996EE7.5020506@itforchange.net> On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Thank you, Karl. Right you are. Two Americans agreeing that continuing US legal oversight of ICANN is the best bet :). > > -----Original Message----- > > My feedback to ICANN at the time was that every one of these had its head in the clouds and rather forgot the practical issues that ICANN is an existing body that has money and property and sits atop a hierarchy of existing contracts. > > One can not simply transfer property, money, or contracts - at least not if one wants to avoid being accused of some modern form of the old crime/tort of "conversion". > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 29 23:56:49 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:26:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world > > Rafik Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an US organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder > > 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller > > > No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is counterproductive > at this stage. Many people who have studied this issue believe > that turning ICANN into an INGO is the surest way for it to escape > what little accountability it currently has. Those willing to go > along with a general call for reform in ICANN’s US-centered > oversight need not commit themselves to a particular solution at > this point, and the language below does that. > > Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for this. > It will take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. > > *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com > ] > *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' > *Cc:* 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller > *Subject:* RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and > Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future > of Internet Governance > > What about > > 1)Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International > Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting > should aim at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to > achieve the desired transition of ICANN and IANA away from its > links to the USG and > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization > > M > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of > *Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > *Cc:* Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller > *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and > Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future > of Internet Governance > > ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several > opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" > rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION > thrust to one which is significantly more embrasive of the > objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, > intends to achieve. > > I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and > appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a > perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market linked > phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more radically, > "Glocalization". > > ------ > Rgds, > > Tracy > > On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal" > wrote: > > Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, > > If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual > perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, > for the pleasure of the reflection: > > *Internationalization*: one wants to have a larger international > basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of > local branches that, being put together, creates an international > network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting > point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the > world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. /Meaning many little > ICANNs all around. / > > *Globalization*: this could happen without a network of offices > around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity > containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still > assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but > embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single > corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a > single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the > many in a global manner of thinking. > > /Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind./ > > *Transnationalization*: this tends to establish a community of > people based in various locations, trying to forget about their > local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to > address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial > issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. > > /Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds./ > > - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater > control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can > pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. > > - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, > specially if you are not starting from a fully independent > culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or > national basis. > > - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts > trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable > approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global > minded system. > > Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying > to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG > debate. > > Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate > objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged > from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, > executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for > consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication > tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and > understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that > usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... > > All the best, > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor in Chief > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > > > @jc_nothias > > Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 > schrieb Milton L Mueller >: > > Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family > > holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word > > "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we > live in > > a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" > is not > > an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena > > > That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their > governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has > certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global > phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of > decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is > happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national > relations. > > On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very > wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased > social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns > that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to > address. > > Maybe yet another term could be used??? > > 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Nov 30 00:08:14 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:08:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: if the solely objective of internationalization of ICANN is just to change the location and giving it an kind of immunity ending to erode any accountability or transparency, yes we have problem. I am not arguing that should be an US org under US laws. how could you conclude that? I have a question, maybe naive: if we have problem with one state to have dominant role as assumed by mant, how adding more states will solve the problem , a kind of zero sum game? another question, what benefit for the average users far from any geopolitical consideration in such case? Rafik 2013/11/30 parminder > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world > > Rafik > > > Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an US > organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder > > > 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller > >> No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is counterproductive at >> this stage. Many people who have studied this issue believe that turning >> ICANN into an INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little >> accountability it currently has. Those willing to go along with a general >> call for reform in ICANN’s US-centered oversight need not commit themselves >> to a particular solution at this point, and the language below does that. >> >> >> >> Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for this. It >> will take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. >> >> >> >> *From:* michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' >> *Cc:* 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller >> *Subject:* RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for >> the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> >> >> What about >> >> >> >> 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International >> Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim >> at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired >> transition of ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and >> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ >> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] >> *On Behalf Of *Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google >> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Cc:* Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for >> the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> >> >> ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several >> opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and >> thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is >> significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of >> what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. >> >> I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and >> appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more >> compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as >> "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". >> >> ------ >> Rgds, >> >> Tracy >> >> >> >> On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" < >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: >> >> Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, >> >> >> >> If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, >> and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of >> the reflection: >> >> >> >> *Internationalization*: one wants to have a larger international basis: >> more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches >> that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each >> element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, >> thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of >> uniformity. *Meaning many little ICANNs all around. * >> >> >> >> *Globalization*: this could happen without a network of offices around >> the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many >> different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a >> governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than >> one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a >> single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a >> global manner of thinking. >> >> *Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind.* >> >> >> >> *Transnationalization*: this tends to establish a community of people >> based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, >> interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, >> regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an >> understanding of global magnitude. >> >> *Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds.* >> >> >> >> >> >> - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over >> the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global >> minded outlet. Good communication value. >> >> - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially >> if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging >> when one starts from a private or national basis. >> >> - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in >> the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and >> ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. >> >> >> >> Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to >> explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. >> >> >> >> Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate >> objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the >> corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would >> convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, >> politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable >> definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something >> that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... >> >> >> >> All the best, >> >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe Nothias >> Editor in Chief >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >> >> @jc_nothias >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >> >> >> >> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 >> schrieb Milton L Mueller : >> >> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family >> >> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word >> >> "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in >> >> a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not >> >> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena >> >> >> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their >> governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has >> certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global >> phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of >> decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is >> happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national >> relations. >> >> On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very >> wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased >> social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns >> that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. >> >> Maybe yet another term could be used??? >> >> 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 >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 00:20:49 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:50:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:38 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > if the solely objective of internationalization of ICANN is just to > change the location and giving it an kind of immunity ending to > erode any accountability or transparency, yes we have problem. No that is not the objective... The objective is to have means of democratic oversight over some key resources that are a global commons... > I am not arguing that should be an US org under US laws. how could > you conclude that? Because that is what Milton is arguing, and that is what it precisely and fully means if ICANN is not to be converted from a US organisation to an international non-gov organisation, unless of course you prefer it changes into a international inter-gov organisation, which I am sure you dont advocate... Can you point to the gap in this logical chain of 'my conclusion', And as you say if you are not arguing that ICANN "should be an US org under US laws ", then the question is "what kind of org and under what kind of law" do you advocate. Thanks. parminder > I have a question, maybe naive: if we have problem with one state to > have dominant role as assumed by mant, how adding more states will > solve the problem , a kind of zero sum game? > another question, what benefit for the average users far from any > geopolitical consideration in such case? > > Rafik > > 2013/11/30 parminder > > > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world >> >> Rafik > > Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an US > organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder > >> >> 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller > > >> >> No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is >> counterproductive at this stage. Many people who have studied >> this issue believe that turning ICANN into an INGO is the >> surest way for it to escape what little accountability it >> currently has. Those willing to go along with a general call >> for reform in ICANN’s US-centered oversight need not commit >> themselves to a particular solution at this point, and the >> language below does that. >> >> Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for >> this. It will take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. >> >> *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com >> ] >> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ >> Google' >> *Cc:* 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller >> *Subject:* RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and >> Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the >> Future of Internet Governance >> >> What about >> >> 1)Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International >> Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global >> Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely >> acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of ICANN >> and IANA away from its links to the USG and >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization >> >> M >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of >> *Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google >> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> *Cc:* Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and >> Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the >> Future of Internet Governance >> >> ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at >> several opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" >> rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting >> INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is significantly >> more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of >> what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. >> >> I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely >> and appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" >> or a perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market >> linked phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more >> radically, "Glocalization". >> >> ------ >> Rgds, >> >> Tracy >> >> On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The >> Global Journal" > > wrote: >> >> Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, >> >> If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual >> perspective, and in my humble Global Governance >> observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: >> >> *Internationalization*: one wants to have a larger >> international basis: more offices, more representatives, more >> of a network of local branches that, being put together, >> creates an international network. Still each element is >> mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, >> thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' >> kind of uniformity. /Meaning many little ICANNs all around. / >> >> *Globalization*: this could happen without a network of >> offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized >> entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, >> still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its >> own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one >> single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many >> voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from >> one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. >> >> /Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind./ >> >> *Transnationalization*: this tends to establish a community >> of people based in various locations, trying to forget about >> their local identity, interest or belonging, with the >> objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, >> trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of >> global magnitude. >> >> /Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds./ >> >> - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater >> control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can >> pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. >> >> - The second option is probably the most difficult to >> achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully >> independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a >> private or national basis. >> >> - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one >> puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more >> sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver >> a true global minded system. >> >> Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth >> trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current >> state of the IG debate. >> >> Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the >> ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' >> which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften >> counter forces or opponents, executives would convene >> 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, >> politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a >> very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even >> looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of >> misunderstandings, deadlocks... >> >> All the best, >> >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe Nothias >> Editor in Chief >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >> >> >> @jc_nothias >> >> Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >> >> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 >> schrieb Milton L Mueller > >: >> >> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big >> family >> >> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word >> >> "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly >> we live in >> >> a world where nations, and by extension the >> "inter-national" is not >> >> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena >> >> >> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and >> their >> governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has >> certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, >> global >> phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of >> decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus >> what is >> happening in inter-national trade and other areas of >> inter-national >> relations. >> >> On the other hand, many civil society people including myself >> are very >> wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often >> increased >> social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of >> concerns >> that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended >> to address. >> >> Maybe yet another term could be used??? >> >> 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 >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 30 00:29:02 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:59:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <45995265-3E2C-4FCC-8581-4300C23E9F54@hserus.net> That doesn't quite answer Rafik's question - which is mine too. And I think the same as them - that creating a vacuum which is going to be filled by an entirely new body is a nonstarter. Expanding governance and participation in existing structures is going to work far better. The CIRP is no sort of answer for this. So ideally this is something that people who actively participate in ICANN and have an actual stake in it are best qualified to answer. --srs (iPad) > On 30-Nov-2013, at 10:50, parminder wrote: > > >> On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:38 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> if the solely objective of internationalization of ICANN is just to change the location and giving it an kind of immunity ending to erode any accountability or transparency, yes we have problem. > > No that is not the objective... The objective is to have means of democratic oversight over some key resources that are a global commons... > >> I am not arguing that should be an US org under US laws. how could you conclude that? > > Because that is what Milton is arguing, and that is what it precisely and fully means if ICANN is not to be converted from a US organisation to an international non-gov organisation, unless of course you prefer it changes into a international inter-gov organisation, which I am sure you dont advocate... Can you point to the gap in this logical chain of 'my conclusion', > > And as you say if you are not arguing that ICANN "should be an US org under US laws ", then the question is "what kind of org and under what kind of law" do you advocate. Thanks. > > parminder > >> I have a question, maybe naive: if we have problem with one state to have dominant role as assumed by mant, how adding more states will solve the problem , a kind of zero sum game? >> another question, what benefit for the average users far from any geopolitical consideration in such case? >> >> Rafik >> >> 2013/11/30 parminder >>> >>>> On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world >>>> >>>> Rafik >>> >>> Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an US organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder >>> >>>> >>>> 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller >>>>> No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is counterproductive at this stage. Many people who have studied this issue believe that turning ICANN into an INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little accountability it currently has. Those willing to go along with a general call for reform in ICANN’s US-centered oversight need not commit themselves to a particular solution at this point, and the language below does that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for this. It will take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM >>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' >>>>> Cc: 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller >>>>> Subject: RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What about >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> M >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google >>>>> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM >>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> Cc: Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. >>>>> >>>>> I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". >>>>> >>>>> ------ >>>>> Rgds, >>>>> >>>>> Tracy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. >>>>> >>>>> Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. >>>>> >>>>> Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. >>>>> >>>>> - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. >>>>> >>>>> - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> All the best, >>>>> >>>>> __________________________ >>>>> >>>>> Jean-Christophe Nothias >>>>> Editor in Chief >>>>> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >>>>> >>>>> @jc_nothias >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 >>>>> schrieb Milton L Mueller : >>>>> >>>>> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family >>>>> >>>>> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word >>>>> >>>>> "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in >>>>> >>>>> a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not >>>>> >>>>> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their >>>>> governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has >>>>> certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global >>>>> phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of >>>>> decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is >>>>> happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national >>>>> relations. >>>>> >>>>> On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very >>>>> wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased >>>>> social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns >>>>> that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe yet another term could be used??? >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Nov 30 00:40:27 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:40:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: > > No that is not the objective... The objective is to have means of > democratic oversight over some key resources that are a global commons... > > I dont think there is disagreement about the oversight BUT I don't see how it will be democratic , at least I didn't see any rationale or logical explanation > I am not arguing that should be an US org under US laws. how could you > conclude that? > > > Because that is what Milton is arguing, and that is what it precisely and > fully means if ICANN is not to be converted from a US organisation to an > international non-gov organisation, unless of course you prefer it changes > into a international inter-gov organisation, which I am sure you dont > advocate... Can you point to the gap in this logical chain of 'my > conclusion', > > it is up to Milton to defend his position and I don't think that he defended an continuity of any kind of US control. anyway you can read his ideas in details at his blog. I made the analogy to FIFA because it is international organisation too if you mean diversity etc but also for the level of corruption and no accountability there. I think that you can see the point here . we can argue a lot about the legal status of the organisation but what matters at the end is the mechanism for accountability, transparency , openness, inclusiveness . And as you say if you are not arguing that ICANN "should be an US org > under US laws ", then the question is "what kind of org and under what kind > of law" do you advocate. Thanks. > I don't have an answer about the legal framework to be used or any other organisational complexity, however I am thinking on how to avoid situation where interests group try to expand trademark law there or governments use GAC to push for content policy through gTLD or eroding privacy rights to match LEA requests without any oversight or in contradiction to ehir own data protection law. I am thinking on how we make the organisation developing users-driven policies and not to respond to narrow governmental or private interests. coming from a small developing country struggling with a complicated and painful democratic transition, I am more keen to defend citizen interests and not by any geopolitical interests of some governments Rafik > > > parminder > > I have a question, maybe naive: if we have problem with one state to > have dominant role as assumed by mant, how adding more states will solve > the problem , a kind of zero sum game? > another question, what benefit for the average users far from any > geopolitical consideration in such case? > > Rafik > > 2013/11/30 parminder > >> >> On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world >> >> Rafik >> >> >> Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an US >> organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder >> >> >> 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller >> >>> No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is counterproductive at >>> this stage. Many people who have studied this issue believe that turning >>> ICANN into an INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little >>> accountability it currently has. Those willing to go along with a general >>> call for reform in ICANN’s US-centered oversight need not commit themselves >>> to a particular solution at this point, and the language below does that. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for this. It >>> will take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM >>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' >>> *Cc:* 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller >>> *Subject:* RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives >>> for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >>> >>> >>> >>> What about >>> >>> >>> >>> 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International >>> Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim >>> at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired >>> transition of ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and >>> >>> >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ >>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] >>> *On Behalf Of *Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google >>> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM >>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> *Cc:* Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives >>> for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >>> >>> >>> >>> ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several >>> opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and >>> thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is >>> significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of >>> what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. >>> >>> I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and >>> appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more >>> compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as >>> "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". >>> >>> ------ >>> Rgds, >>> >>> Tracy >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" < >>> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, >>> >>> >>> >>> If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, >>> and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of >>> the reflection: >>> >>> >>> >>> *Internationalization*: one wants to have a larger international basis: >>> more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches >>> that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each >>> element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, >>> thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of >>> uniformity. *Meaning many little ICANNs all around. * >>> >>> >>> >>> *Globalization*: this could happen without a network of offices around >>> the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many >>> different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a >>> governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than >>> one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a >>> single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a >>> global manner of thinking. >>> >>> *Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind.* >>> >>> >>> >>> *Transnationalization*: this tends to establish a community of people >>> based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, >>> interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, >>> regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an >>> understanding of global magnitude. >>> >>> *Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds.* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over >>> the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global >>> minded outlet. Good communication value. >>> >>> - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially >>> if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging >>> when one starts from a private or national basis. >>> >>> - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in >>> the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and >>> ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. >>> >>> >>> >>> Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to >>> explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. >>> >>> >>> >>> Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate >>> objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the >>> corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would >>> convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, >>> politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable >>> definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something >>> that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... >>> >>> >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> __________________________ >>> >>> Jean-Christophe Nothias >>> Editor in Chief >>> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >>> >>> @jc_nothias >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >>> >>> >>> >>> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 >>> schrieb Milton L Mueller : >>> >>> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family >>> >>> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word >>> >>> "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in >>> >>> a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not >>> >>> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena >>> >>> >>> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their >>> governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has >>> certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global >>> phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of >>> decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is >>> happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national >>> relations. >>> >>> On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very >>> wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased >>> social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns >>> that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. >>> >>> Maybe yet another term could be used??? >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 00:42:41 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 21:42:41 -0800 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <072c01ceed8e$fd187320$f7495960$@gmail.com> Yes, I completely agree. Since others were tossing around casual suggestions I thought I would offer what seemed to be an obvious one as well, but of course it needs some very serious thought and analysis. M From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:25 PM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' Cc: 'Norbert Bollow' Subject: RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is counterproductive at this stage. Many people who have studied this issue believe that turning ICANN into an INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little accountability it currently has. Those willing to go along with a general call for reform in ICANN’s US-centered oversight need not commit themselves to a particular solution at this point, and the language below does that. Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for this. It will take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' Cc: 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance What about 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". ------ Rgds, Tracy On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around. Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind. Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds. - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... All the best, __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 schrieb Milton L Mueller : Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national relations. On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. Maybe yet another term could be used??? 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 anja at internetdemocracy.in Sat Nov 30 01:23:09 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 11:53:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <4A6F20B8-1CB7-4874-811F-491CC6963EDE@apc.org> References: <4A6F20B8-1CB7-4874-811F-491CC6963EDE@apc.org> Message-ID: +1 On Nov 30, 2013 2:50 AM, "Valeria Betancourt" wrote: > + 1 > > Valeria > > On 29/11/2013, at 15:57, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > > Thanks Ian. > > Letter looks fine. And thanks to the team for giving time to this. > Best to the nominees. > > N > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as >> an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this >> meeting in two weeks time. >> >> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was >> imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the people >> involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. >> >> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit >> names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would >> have been the alternative in this timeframe. >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> 29 November 2013 >> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London >> >> Dear Fadi and Nora: >> >> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of >> representatives of the >> civil society networks most involved in Internet governance >> deliberations, we appreciate your >> willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future >> of Internet >> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is >> under-represented on >> your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil >> society participants to >> this panel to provide more balance. >> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2 >> civil society >> representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from >> government, the >> private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel. >> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High Level >> Panel are: >> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) >> 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) >> Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and >> contact our >> representatives directly to arrange their participation? >> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the >> Diplo Foundation as >> a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator. >> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable >> representation of civil >> society in such panels and committees. >> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from >> various civil society >> networks were: >> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation >> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) >> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) >> Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus >> (IGC) >> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits >> Signed, >> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 02:24:45 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 12:54:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> On Saturday 30 November 2013 11:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > > > > it is up to Milton to defend his position and I don't think that he > defended an continuity of any kind of US control. anyway you can read > his ideas in details at his blog. For sure, I have read them. Yes, he does advocate continued oversight ('control' if you like) by US legal system, or broadly, the US polity, over ICANN, but extinguishing executive controls exercised through US DoC. But of course Milton can tell us if I am wrong in saying the above... parminder > I made the analogy to FIFA because it is international organisation > too if you mean diversity etc but also for the level of corruption > and no accountability there. I think that you can see the point here . > we can argue a lot about the legal status of the organisation but what > matters at the end is the mechanism for accountability, transparency , > openness, inclusiveness . > > > And as you say if you are not arguing that ICANN "should be an US > org under US laws ", then the question is "what kind of org and > under what kind of law" do you advocate. Thanks. > > > I don't have an answer about the legal framework to be used or any > other organisational complexity, however I am thinking on how to > avoid situation where interests group try to expand trademark law > there or governments use GAC to push for content policy through gTLD > or eroding privacy rights to match LEA requests without any oversight > or in contradiction to ehir own data protection law. I am thinking on > how we make the organisation developing users-driven policies and not > to respond to narrow governmental or private interests. > coming from a small developing country struggling with a complicated > and painful democratic transition, I am more keen to defend citizen > interests and not by any geopolitical interests of some governments > > > Rafik > > > > parminder > >> I have a question, maybe naive: if we have problem with one state >> to have dominant role as assumed by mant, how adding more states >> will solve the problem , a kind of zero sum game? >> another question, what benefit for the average users far from any >> geopolitical consideration in such case? >> >> Rafik >> >> 2013/11/30 parminder > > >> >> >> On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world >>> >>> Rafik >> >> Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an >> US organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder >> >>> >>> 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller >> > >>> >>> No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is >>> counterproductive at this stage. Many people who have >>> studied this issue believe that turning ICANN into an >>> INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little >>> accountability it currently has. Those willing to go >>> along with a general call for reform in ICANN’s >>> US-centered oversight need not commit themselves to a >>> particular solution at this point, and the language >>> below does that. >>> >>> Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions >>> for this. It will take more than a scan of Wikipedia to >>> solve. >>> >>> *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com >>> ] >>> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM >>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> ; 'Tracy F. >>> Hackshaw @ Google' >>> *Cc:* 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller >>> *Subject:* RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process >>> and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting >>> on the Future of Internet Governance >>> >>> What about >>> >>> 1)Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International >>> Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global >>> Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely >>> acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of >>> ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization >>> >>> M >>> >>> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On >>> Behalf Of *Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google >>> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM >>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> *Cc:* Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process >>> and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting >>> on the Future of Internet Governance >>> >>> ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at >>> several opportunities to adjust its >>> "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and thus its >>> resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is >>> significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and >>> indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends >>> to achieve. >>> >>> I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is >>> timely and appropriate ... whether we use the term >>> "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising and less >>> economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as >>> "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". >>> >>> ------ >>> Rgds, >>> >>> Tracy >>> >>> On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The >>> Global Journal" >> > wrote: >>> >>> Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, >>> >>> If I may contribute, with a somehow different and >>> unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance >>> observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: >>> >>> *Internationalization*: one wants to have a larger >>> international basis: more offices, more representatives, >>> more of a network of local branches that, being put >>> together, creates an international network. Still each >>> element is mostly comparable to the starting point in >>> terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the >>> world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. /Meaning many >>> little ICANNs all around. / >>> >>> *Globalization*: this could happen without a network of >>> offices around the world. You can observe a very >>> globalized entity containing so many different elements, >>> co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a >>> governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that >>> could fit more than one single corporation, institution, >>> nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global >>> body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many >>> in a global manner of thinking. >>> >>> /Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind./ >>> >>> *Transnationalization*: this tends to establish a >>> community of people based in various locations, trying >>> to forget about their local identity, interest or >>> belonging, with the objective to address a more common, >>> regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to >>> achieve an understanding of global magnitude. >>> >>> /Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds./ >>> >>> - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a >>> greater control over the network, and at the end of the >>> day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good >>> communication value. >>> >>> - The second option is probably the most difficult to >>> achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully >>> independent culture. Very challenging when one starts >>> from a private or national basis. >>> >>> - The third option might be a good compromise, if each >>> one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a >>> more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that >>> could deliver a true global minded system. >>> >>> Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least >>> worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the >>> current state of the IG debate. >>> >>> Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the >>> ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' >>> which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften >>> counter forces or opponents, executives would convene >>> 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade >>> union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, >>> it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, >>> and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually >>> brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> __________________________ >>> >>> Jean-Christophe Nothias >>> Editor in Chief >>> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >>> >>> >>> @jc_nothias >>> >>> Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >>> >>> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 >>> schrieb Milton L Mueller >> >: >>> >>> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a >>> big family >>> >>> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word >>> >>> "internationalization" with "globalization"? >>> Increasingly we live in >>> >>> a world where nations, and by extension the >>> "inter-national" is not >>> >>> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena >>> >>> >>> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states >>> and their >>> governments of course continue to have a significant >>> role, it has >>> certainly become inadequate to try to understand >>> transborder, global >>> phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier >>> times) of >>> decomposing into what is happening at the national level >>> plus what is >>> happening in inter-national trade and other areas of >>> inter-national >>> relations. >>> >>> On the other hand, many civil society people including >>> myself are very >>> wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has >>> often increased >>> social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the >>> kinds of concerns >>> that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is >>> intended to address. >>> >>> Maybe yet another term could be used??? >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 05:19:40 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:19:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Deirdre, all: Thank you for this useful clarification. I definitely think as we discover the limits of "multistakeholderism" we need to go beyond just criticizing its inadequacy or adverse effects to start formulating (conceptualizing) a different model of participation and inclusion (if only as practitioners), which you have just started doing, it seems to me. If people want to keep the MS model and just clarify its content/mechanisms, that's okay; if they instead want to come up with a different label for the new concept, we may still try. Along the same lines and in light of the recent developments on this list, I was thinking IGC may need to be reformed so as to clarify and highlight what we have in common and what we believe we can achieve together. And again that will have to take into account the model of participation and inclusiveness we seek or think is best in the IG policy space. People have pointed out the fact that the latest NomCom headed by Ian was able to cooperate and be effective despite differences, etc. I would submit the main difference between the NomCom and the IGC as a whole, which enables effective cooperation, is that the first was organized around a specific mission. That suggests to me that if we want to make progress and stop with the polarization and the negativity, we will need IGC to stop being _mainly_ a discussion list for the sake of discussion and to be reorganized around tasks, focusing on working on specific outputs or drafting inputs to a policy process, etc. Of course people are free to post whatever they want: post links to articles or to blog posts, share other information they deem relevant or even start open open-ended conversations or debates. But maybe we need to find a way to distinguish those exchange streams from the ones that directly concern the work of IGC --which again is not just a discussion list. So that co-cos or any other member would read the former only if they want and choose to without impacting on the work of IGC. (Regarding blogs, for instance, I would personally encourage members wanting to comment on any blog post should do it in the area for comments on that blog page, assuming there's no harm for the commenter to subscribe to that blog.) Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud to what we can do to improve the atmosphere on this list for a better and productive cooperation. We need to put our heads together and do something about this if we want IGC to remain relevant. Mawaki -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Mawaki Chango, PhD Principal & Founder, DIGILEXIS Consulting http://www.digilexis.com m.chango at digilexis.com twitter.com/digilexis twitter.com/dig_mawaki Mobile: +225 4448 7764 Skype: digilexis On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Mawaki, > Thank you for helping me to clarify what I was thinking. > > Civil society, as we are using the term, seems to embrace "all of us" and > therefore is a very unwieldy thing to provide "representation" for. Apart > from any other considerations the societies within which we live have > coalesced around a broad range of norms, values and priorities. To my mind > the differing priorities create the greatest obstacle to reaching > consensus. To make matters worse "civil society", as well as standing for > all of us also stands for "each of us"; that is "civil society" is the most > likely champion of the rights of the individual as well as of those > individuals taken together as a group, a society. > > If I wanted to propose a conspiracy theory I would suggest that one of the > best ways to discredit the claims for consideration of individual and > social rights is to create an entity called "civil society" and offer it > one, or more, seats at the table to speak for individual and social rights. > Divide and rule is a method which has proved successful, but aggregate to > divide to rule, that's a really innovative twist. > > Which is why I think it's important to emphasise the individual and social > policy perspectives, rather than the people comprised by "civil society". > > Consider the nature of "all of us". Many of us have no idea what "Internet > governance" is all about, and do not understand the rather arcane language > that is used, particularly the acronyms, and especially if we belong to the > group that has little or no knowledge of English. All of us however are > affected by the Internet, even if we don't use it. But most of us don't > think through a prism of "the Internet"; instead we are concerned about the > privacy of our personal information, our rights to express ourselves and > associate with others, what things cost, our control over the money that we > earn, our security, etc., all of which may in some way be connected with > the Internet. > > The main aspects of issues have been fairly well established. I would > suggest that there are 5 - technical, governmental, business, social and > individual. Not all issues will have all 5 aspects, but very few of them > will have only one. In some cases the relevant different aspects will align > harmoniously, in others a point of balance will have to be negotiated. Each > of the 5 will need a team of advocates to argue and support the claims of > that aspect. Each team will need to have a broad geographic spread - for > example in the technical aspect what is possible and desirable in Denmark > may not work in Cameroon. Each team will need to be able to focus on the > particular aspect for which it is the advocate. Each team will therefore > "argue from a particular perspective" rather than "belong to a particular > group". > > George asks "where?" I don't know. We need a marketplace, an agora. We > need a place of trust and safety. Possibly we need a virtual hammam to > which could be brought naked ideas? > > Setting up another new space is always problematic, but trust is a very > expensive thing to lose. Trust is in fact priceless: you cannot buy it. It > will grow back by itself given a favourable environment, but the current > environment is unfavourable to the point of being toxic. What is needed is > an "honest broker" who can be trusted, by everyone, not to build empires > and to insist on fair play. And to finance the enterprise? The cost of > maintaining the space could be provided in equal shares by all of the large > enterprises for whom the Internet is a source of revenue - as a free gift - > the money to be scrupulously and publicly audited annually. > > This is an attempt to look at the problem from a different direction. > > Deirdre > > > > > On 26 November 2013 08:27, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Deirdre Williams < >> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by >>> Michael Gurstein >>> Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST >>> Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society >>> I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread >>> Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder >>> environment >>> begun by George Sadowsky. >>> >>> Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues? >>> In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point was >>> made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at a recent >>> workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his children also query >>> the speed of the Internet at home when they have to do their homework. The >>> only people excluded from civil society are incarcerated prisoners, and >>> that also is a statement that can be questioned. If I understand him >>> correctly George Sadowsky is making the same point. Civil society is us - >>> all of us. >>> >> >> Sure! We may declare everybody is CS and expect any institutional policy >> process to open mike to whoever walks in and requests to speak as CS. From >> my part, I was working on the basis of assumptions I thought were widely >> recognized as part of the current landscape --and even an inevitable part. >> If we want to talk about _multistakeholder_ processes, then we cannot but >> recognize multiple stakeholders, thus boundaries. If we have set up IGC as >> a membership structure, then we have necessarily identified criteria for >> membership, thus boundaries. Mine was an attempt to clarify and even extend >> those inevitable boundaries (based on our operating assumptions); I didn't >> participate in creating them and am not necessarily advocating for >> maintaining or reinforcing them. I can content myself with any other viable >> way to make my voice and voices of any people with legitimate concerns >> heard and taken into account. >> I think I have said all what I had to say on this topic. >> Thanks, >> >> Mawaki >> > ..... > > > -- > “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 Sat Nov 30 05:51:27 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 11:51:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Request to reconsider In-Reply-To: <51355FA5-BC73-439E-AC55-8C6DDB77B179@gmail.com> References: <1385553497.39194.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <51355FA5-BC73-439E-AC55-8C6DDB77B179@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20131130115127.7921a024@quill> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Following from Nnenna's email, you can still reconsider and we can > > chalk this off to a sabbatical leave for two weeks? > > Humans need rest and sabbatical. While the point about the human need for rest and sabbatical is very valid and true, organizations such as the IGC have needs too. Most of the time (at least as long as things are going reasonably well) one important aspect is that there is a need for a significant degree of continuity. That is reflected in the IGC Charter by the provision to have two coordinators with terms of office that overlap by a year. In my (thoughtfully considered) opinion the current state of the IGC is exceptional in that a fresh start is absolutely needed now. We are at a point where continuity is something that IGC needs to avoid as much as reasonably possible. We need a fresh team of coordinators (the call for nominations for the coordinator elections is still running until Dec 1) and a fresh willingness among the IGC members without coordinator hat to participate constructively. Please everyone accept my resignation as a definitive decision, and let's turn our eyes to the future while adopting a mindset that can overcome the dysfunctional patterns of interaction that have plagued IGC! Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Nov 30 06:25:52 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 09:25:52 -0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52996EE7.5020506@itforchange.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25740E6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52996EE7.5020506@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5299CB40.5040905@cafonso.ca> I risk to be bitten by (no, not monkeys, Milton) scorpions here, but if "removal of the source of authority from a single national government and the linkage of its authority over the DNS root zone file to a global polity" is achieved, the need to change/globalize/internationalize ICANN (the organization) becomes a relatively minor issue, n'est pas? fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/30/2013 02:51 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Thank you, Karl. Right you are. > > Two Americans agreeing that continuing US legal oversight of ICANN is > the best bet :). > > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> My feedback to ICANN at the time was that every one of these had its >> head in the clouds and rather forgot the practical issues that ICANN >> is an existing body that has money and property and sits atop a >> hierarchy of existing contracts. >> >> One can not simply transfer property, money, or contracts - at least >> not if one wants to avoid being accused of some modern form of the old >> crime/tort of "conversion". >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 06:43:09 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 12:43:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <5299CB40.5040905@cafonso.ca> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25740E6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52996EE7.5020506@itforchange.net> <5299CB40.5040905@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20131130124309.086175a8@quill> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I risk to be bitten by (no, not monkeys, Milton) scorpions here, but > if "removal of the source of authority from a single national > government and the linkage of its authority over the DNS root zone > file to a global polity" is achieved, the need to > change/globalize/internationalize ICANN (the organization) becomes a > relatively minor issue, n'est pas? My perspective on this is that the "removal of the source of authority from a single national government and the linkage of its authority over the DNS root zone file to a global polity" is IMO primarily of symbolic importance, as we have discussed in depth some time ago that the degree of real-world power that the executive branch of the US government has in the current arrangement is rather limited if it is of any significance at all. I think that the aspect of jurisdiction is much more important and also much more difficult. Fadi said in Bali that ICANN could be made subject to multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. I absolutely don't see how that could possibly work, but maybe someone can enlighten me. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Nov 30 07:03:39 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:03:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] HLLM in London - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131130130339.5072129e@quill> Thanks a lot Ian!!! Having participated in this process only during part of the time (until my resignation as IGC co-coordinator) I am very happy to see that a result has been reached which I can wholeheartedly support both personally and as being well aligned with what I understand of IGC's perspective as a group. Greetings, Norbert Ian Peter wrote: > Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as > an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at > this meeting in two weeks time. > > Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result > was imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the > people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > > I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit > names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing > would have been the alternative in this timeframe. > > > Ian Peter > > > 29 November 2013 > RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > > Dear Fadi and Nora: > > I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of > representatives of the civil society networks most involved in > Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to > engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet > governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is > under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to > accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide > more balance. After consultations with our networks, we propose > adding the following 2 civil society representatives to begin to > balance against the much larger numbers from government, the private > sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel. > Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High > Level Panel are: 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton > Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your > acceptance of these names, and contact our representatives directly > to arrange their participation? We also strongly recommend the > involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo Foundation as a highly > experienced and knowledgeable facilitator. We trust that in future we > will be able to look at much more equitable representation of civil > society in such panels and committees. Persons involved with these > deliberations and choice of names from various civil society networks > were: Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation Anriette Esterhuysen, > Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Robin Gross, ICANN's > Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert Bollow and Salanieta > Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Jeremy Malcolm, > Best Bits Signed, > Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 07:41:12 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:41:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Coordinator elections Message-ID: <20131130134112.13e9976b@quill> Dear all In response to my recent posting in which I mentioned a Dec 1 deadline in relation to the coordinator elections, I've been asked off-list whether that had been formally announced. Since it's a general rule of thumb that when one person explicitly asks, probably several others were wondering the same thing, here's a copy pf the posting in question... Greetings, Norbert --snip----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 01:23:30 +1300 Message-ID: From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] Dear Colleagues, Further to the *June 6, 2013* notice for calls for coordinator, we are happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on December 1, 2013. For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was why we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about candidates. This year, we started making early calls to start thinking about nominating someone or standing for the elections for the 2014-2016 term. We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please liaise with them and nominate them on the list. *The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 *to allow for elections. having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I thought I should add some reflections that may help those who are thinking of standing or to encourage people to stand. *Reflections * The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the facilitation of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and encouraging members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the Charter and providing a platform for advocacy. The role and responsibilities will be an opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes antagonistic views. It requires strength, courage and emotional intelligence to manage the responsibilities. For me personally, it has been an incredible opportunity learning about dealing with diverse voices and I can say that I have learnt the discipline of restraint where at times I have had to hold back my view because facilitators have to have some form of neutrality and act in the best interests of the IGC community. Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs to be clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the majority before deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time for Internet Governance. The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally with the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. *Current Nominations Received* 1. Deirdre Williams 2. x 3. x Kind Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Sat Nov 30 08:14:14 2013 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:14:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear all, Finding an appropriate term is something that is an ongoing difficulty for the reasons detailed in this thread. And the ICANN community, staff and board are regularly struggling with this. The current consultations for the Strategic Plan illustrate it. In this context, Milton rightly highlights the ambiguity when discussing "ICANN's internationalization". There are different complementary dimensions behind this word, and it is important to distinguish them. I see at least the following three aspects: 1. *The Organization's physical presence and outreach*: this includes the current opening of hubs in Singapore and Istanbul, the creation of additional engagement offices, the role of the "regional" VPs, the development of multilingualism, etc... Generally speaking this is about ICANN moving closer to the people it serves, rather than having one core site of operations and asking people to just come to its meetings. In a nutshell, this is about ICANN thinking internationally. 2. *The incorporation of the organization in one particular country *(US in the State of California) and submission to one national legal regime vs exploring possible alternatives, such as: specific immunities, another country with specific regime for international non-profit organizations (cf. the report mentioned by Nick), or a more international status (INGO as Michael suggested) ... As mentioned by Karl, there are difficult legal and practical questions and this is why this has not necessarily moved much until now. Furthermore, ICANN had many other fish to fry in the last years, including improving its own operational capacity and the management of the new gTLD program. ICANN is performing a global public interest function, is therefore a global organization in that regard, even if the current international system does not easily (if at all) allow to create global structures that are not intergovernmental. 3. Last but not least, the term "ICANN's internationalization" also includes, as Milton noted, the question of *the role of the US administration in the IANA process*. This itself actually covers two dimensions: the fact that the IANA contract giving ICANN the responsibility for the clerical verification of the requests for changes in the root zone file is still issued by the US government AND the specific role of the US NTIA in the final transmission of the change to Verisign. This is now less a taboo for discussion since the Montevideo Declaration, which is good, and I am deeply convinced there are ways to address this issue in a fact-based and constructive manner. That being said, the important part is more about the internationalization of NTIA's role in the IANA workflow than the internationalization of ICANN itself. And the solution for that - even if we use the term "internationalization" - is not a sort of Digital Security Council. Innovation is needed here if we collectively want to move to a system that guarantees for ALL actors the integrity of the root zone file, ensuring that no one, voluntarily or involuntarily, can tamper with the root. Maybe different words could be used for these different dimensions. I hope this helps. Bests Bertrand On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I like these distinctions and I think they are valid. However all three > definitions overlook one of the most important aspects of the globalization > or transnationalization of ICANN: the removal of the source of authority > from a single national government and the linkage of its authority over the > DNS root zone file to a global polity. > > > > --MM > > > > *From:* Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal [mailto: > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net] > *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 3:52 PM > *To:* Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for > the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, > > > > If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and > in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the > reflection: > > > > *Internationalization*: one wants to have a larger international basis: > more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches > that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each > element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, > thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of > uniformity. *Meaning many little ICANNs all around. * > > > > *Globalization*: this could happen without a network of offices around > the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many > different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a > governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than > one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a > single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a > global manner of thinking. > > *Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind.* > > > > *Transnationalization*: this tends to establish a community of people > based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, > interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, > regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an > understanding of global magnitude. > > *Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds.* > > > > > > - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over > the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global > minded outlet. Good communication value. > > - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially > if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging > when one starts from a private or national basis. > > - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in > the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and > ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. > > > > Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to > explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. > > > > Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate > objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the > corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would > convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, > politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable > definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something > that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... > > > > All the best, > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor in Chief > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > > @jc_nothias > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > > Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 > schrieb Milton L Mueller : > > > Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family > > holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word > > "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in > > a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not > > an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena > > > That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their > governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has > certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global > phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of > decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is > happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national > relations. > > On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very > wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased > social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns > that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. > > Maybe yet another term could be used??? > > 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 > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy ( www.internetjurisdiction.net) Former Member, ICANN Board of Directors Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Nov 30 08:28:33 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 09:28:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word. Deirdre On 30 November 2013 09:14, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > Finding an appropriate term is something that is an ongoing difficulty for > the reasons detailed in this thread. And the ICANN community, staff and > board are regularly struggling with this. The current consultations for the > Strategic Plan illustrate it. > > In this context, Milton rightly highlights the ambiguity when discussing > "ICANN's internationalization". There are different complementary > dimensions behind this word, and it is important to distinguish them. I see > at least the following three aspects: > > 1. *The Organization's physical presence and outreach*: this includes > the current opening of hubs in Singapore and Istanbul, the creation of > additional engagement offices, the role of the "regional" VPs, the > development of multilingualism, etc... Generally speaking this is about > ICANN moving closer to the people it serves, rather than having one core > site of operations and asking people to just come to its meetings. In a > nutshell, this is about ICANN thinking internationally. > 2. *The incorporation of the organization in one particular country *(US > in the State of California) and submission to one national legal regime vs > exploring possible alternatives, such as: specific immunities, another > country with specific regime for international non-profit organizations > (cf. the report mentioned by Nick), or a more international status (INGO as > Michael suggested) ... As mentioned by Karl, there are difficult legal and > practical questions and this is why this has not necessarily moved much > until now. Furthermore, ICANN had many other fish to fry in the last years, > including improving its own operational capacity and the management of the > new gTLD program. ICANN is performing a global public interest function, is > therefore a global organization in that regard, even if the current > international system does not easily (if at all) allow to create global > structures that are not intergovernmental. > 3. Last but not least, the term "ICANN's internationalization" also > includes, as Milton noted, the question of *the role of the US > administration in the IANA process*. This itself actually covers two > dimensions: the fact that the IANA contract giving ICANN the responsibility > for the clerical verification of the requests for changes in the root zone > file is still issued by the US government AND the specific role of the US > NTIA in the final transmission of the change to Verisign. This is now less > a taboo for discussion since the Montevideo Declaration, which is good, and > I am deeply convinced there are ways to address this issue in a fact-based > and constructive manner. That being said, the important part is more about > the internationalization of NTIA's role in the IANA workflow than the > internationalization of ICANN itself. And the solution for that - even if > we use the term "internationalization" - is not a sort of Digital Security > Council. Innovation is needed here if we collectively want to move to a > system that guarantees for ALL actors the integrity of the root zone file, > ensuring that no one, voluntarily or involuntarily, can tamper with the > root. > > Maybe different words could be used for these different dimensions. > > I hope this helps. > > Bests > > Bertrand > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> I like these distinctions and I think they are valid. However all three >> definitions overlook one of the most important aspects of the globalization >> or transnationalization of ICANN: the removal of the source of authority >> from a single national government and the linkage of its authority over the >> DNS root zone file to a global polity. >> >> >> >> --MM >> >> >> >> *From:* Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal [mailto: >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net] >> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 3:52 PM >> *To:* Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller >> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for >> the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> >> >> Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, >> >> >> >> If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, >> and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of >> the reflection: >> >> >> >> *Internationalization*: one wants to have a larger international basis: >> more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches >> that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each >> element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, >> thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of >> uniformity. *Meaning many little ICANNs all around. * >> >> >> >> *Globalization*: this could happen without a network of offices around >> the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many >> different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a >> governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than >> one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a >> single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a >> global manner of thinking. >> >> *Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind.* >> >> >> >> *Transnationalization*: this tends to establish a community of people >> based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, >> interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, >> regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an >> understanding of global magnitude. >> >> *Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds.* >> >> >> >> >> >> - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over >> the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global >> minded outlet. Good communication value. >> >> - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially >> if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging >> when one starts from a private or national basis. >> >> - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in >> the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and >> ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. >> >> >> >> Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to >> explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. >> >> >> >> Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate >> objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the >> corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would >> convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, >> politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable >> definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something >> that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... >> >> >> >> All the best, >> >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe Nothias >> Editor in Chief >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >> >> @jc_nothias >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >> >> >> >> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 >> schrieb Milton L Mueller : >> >> >> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family >> >> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word >> >> "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in >> >> a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not >> >> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena >> >> >> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their >> governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has >> certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global >> phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of >> decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is >> happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national >> relations. >> >> On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very >> wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased >> social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns >> that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. >> >> Maybe yet another term could be used??? >> >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy > (www.internetjurisdiction.net) > Former Member, ICANN Board of Directors > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 Sat Nov 30 08:43:59 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:43:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20131130144359.2d1fd042@quill> Deirdre Williams wrote: > Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word. Maybe then we should look for a combination of several words that expresses what we're looking for. How about "adapting ICANN's legal and accountability framework to meet the needs of today's international and global concerns around economic and social justice and the public interest"? Greetings, Norbert > On 30 November 2013 09:14, Bertrand de La Chapelle > wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > Finding an appropriate term is something that is an ongoing > > difficulty for the reasons detailed in this thread. And the ICANN > > community, staff and board are regularly struggling with this. The > > current consultations for the Strategic Plan illustrate it. > > > > In this context, Milton rightly highlights the ambiguity when > > discussing "ICANN's internationalization". There are different > > complementary dimensions behind this word, and it is important to > > distinguish them. I see at least the following three aspects: > > > > 1. *The Organization's physical presence and outreach*: this > > includes the current opening of hubs in Singapore and Istanbul, the > > creation of additional engagement offices, the role of the > > "regional" VPs, the development of multilingualism, etc... > > Generally speaking this is about ICANN moving closer to the people > > it serves, rather than having one core site of operations and > > asking people to just come to its meetings. In a nutshell, this is > > about ICANN thinking internationally. 2. *The incorporation of the > > organization in one particular country *(US in the State of > > California) and submission to one national legal regime vs > > exploring possible alternatives, such as: specific immunities, > > another country with specific regime for international non-profit > > organizations (cf. the report mentioned by Nick), or a more > > international status (INGO as Michael suggested) ... As mentioned > > by Karl, there are difficult legal and practical questions and this > > is why this has not necessarily moved much until now. Furthermore, > > ICANN had many other fish to fry in the last years, including > > improving its own operational capacity and the management of the > > new gTLD program. ICANN is performing a global public interest > > function, is therefore a global organization in that regard, even > > if the current international system does not easily (if at all) > > allow to create global structures that are not intergovernmental. > > 3. Last but not least, the term "ICANN's internationalization" > > also includes, as Milton noted, the question of *the role of the US > > administration in the IANA process*. This itself actually covers > > two dimensions: the fact that the IANA contract giving ICANN the > > responsibility for the clerical verification of the requests for > > changes in the root zone file is still issued by the US government > > AND the specific role of the US NTIA in the final transmission of > > the change to Verisign. This is now less a taboo for discussion > > since the Montevideo Declaration, which is good, and I am deeply > > convinced there are ways to address this issue in a fact-based and > > constructive manner. That being said, the important part is more > > about the internationalization of NTIA's role in the IANA workflow > > than the internationalization of ICANN itself. And the solution for > > that - even if we use the term "internationalization" - is not a > > sort of Digital Security Council. Innovation is needed here if we > > collectively want to move to a system that guarantees for ALL > > actors the integrity of the root zone file, ensuring that no one, > > voluntarily or involuntarily, can tamper with the root. > > > > Maybe different words could be used for these different dimensions. > > > > I hope this helps. > > > > Bests > > > > Bertrand > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Milton L Mueller > > wrote: > > > >> I like these distinctions and I think they are valid. However all > >> three definitions overlook one of the most important aspects of > >> the globalization or transnationalization of ICANN: the removal of > >> the source of authority from a single national government and the > >> linkage of its authority over the DNS root zone file to a global > >> polity. > >> > >> > >> > >> --MM > >> > >> > >> > >> *From:* Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal [mailto: > >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net] > >> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 3:52 PM > >> *To:* Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller > >> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> > >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and > >> Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future > >> of Internet Governance > >> > >> > >> > >> Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, > >> > >> > >> > >> If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual > >> perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer > >> capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: > >> > >> > >> > >> *Internationalization*: one wants to have a larger international > >> basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of > >> local branches that, being put together, creates an international > >> network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting > >> point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the > >> world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. *Meaning many little > >> ICANNs all around. * > >> > >> > >> > >> *Globalization*: this could happen without a network of offices > >> around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity > >> containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still > >> assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but > >> embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single > >> corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a > >> single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the > >> many in a global manner of thinking. > >> > >> *Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind.* > >> > >> > >> > >> *Transnationalization*: this tends to establish a community of > >> people based in various locations, trying to forget about their > >> local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to > >> address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial > >> issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. > >> > >> *Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds.* > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater > >> control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can > >> pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. > >> > >> - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, > >> specially if you are not starting from a fully independent > >> culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or > >> national basis. > >> > >> - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts > >> trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable > >> approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global > >> minded system. > >> > >> > >> > >> Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to > >> explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG > >> debate. > >> > >> > >> > >> Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate > >> objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged > >> from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, > >> executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for > >> consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication > >> tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and > >> understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that > >> usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... > >> > >> > >> > >> All the best, > >> > >> __________________________ > >> > >> Jean-Christophe Nothias > >> Editor in Chief > >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > >> > >> @jc_nothias > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > >> > >> > >> > >> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 > >> schrieb Milton L Mueller : > >> > >> > >> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big > >> family > >> > >> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word > >> > >> "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live > >> in > >> > >> a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is > >> not > >> > >> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena > >> > >> > >> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their > >> governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has > >> certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, > >> global phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) > >> of decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus > >> what is happening in inter-national trade and other areas of > >> inter-national relations. > >> > >> On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are > >> very wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often > >> increased social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the > >> kinds of concerns that the further "internationalization" of ICANN > >> is intended to address. > >> > >> Maybe yet another term could be used??? > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > ____________________ > > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic > > Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net) > > Former Member, ICANN Board of Directors > > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine > > de Saint Exupéry > > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your 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 Nov 30 08:55:27 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 08:55:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Bertrand, No disagreement with any of the below. However, we should recognise the paradigm shift that has been under way for the last year. It is now the GAC that has near veto power over what goes in the root. NTIA only has the responsibility to determine if IANA followed their own process in making changes. the GAC actually gets to say to the Board "this string should not go in the root". We should be aware that this is a far greater power than NTIA has ever had. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Nov 30 09:14:04 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 09:14:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Hi, While I have been largely silent on the list while waiting for my charges against another member to be processed, I need to respond to one point: " There is no possibility of the ICANN Board reversing these decisions, no political games from governments, etc. Truly multi-equal stakeholderism. " NCSG its currently engaged in lengthy appeal against a situation where this its indeed our accusation, that the board did indeed reverse bottom up decisions. I think there are lots of positive values in ICANN's implementation of a multi stakeholder organization, and I am committed to its preservation, I am also committed to its improvement, and recognizing imperfections its part of that process. As part of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team this year (it happens every few years, a marvelous instantiation of bottom up soft oversight) the notion of Board infallibility and of the absence of appeals mechanisms has been an issue. And whether the governments play political games or not is an issue of open debate. Btw our draft report its still open for comment. Avri McTim wrote: > > > >On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias < >jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Agree with you Tracy regarding the timely and appropriate >recommendation. >> I was emphasizing that "globalization" would be quite a stretch for >what is >> still the ICANN statUS-quo today. >> > > >Which status quo is that? The one where the US gets to say what goes >into >the root? If so, you may want to ask Amazon, Patagonia and .gcc >(amongst >others) what is the current status quo. > > > >> I do believe that "globalization" would mean much more than >> "internationalization", the latter meaning more or less a simple >expansion >> (conquest...) >> >> One question though: is ICANN thinking of institutionalizing itself, >or >> getting representative of more parties, or both? What's behind ICANN >> internationalization? I still wonder. Is this wording able to >please/trap >> the multilateral layer of the IG, the nation states and the CS by the >same >> token? Is this word used to give an institutional shine to ICANN, so >to be >> seen as some kind of international organization (multilateral >system). But >> then, if so, will ICANN use an empty concept such as "equal footing"? >Equal >> footing sounds 'cool' but it's empty when it comes to decision >making. >> > >Actually it is not. There are some ICANN processes where decisions are >still made in a process where everyone has the same voice, there is no >voting, no representation, no silos. Everyone comes together on lists >and >in person to forge consensus. There is no possibility of the ICANN >Board >reversing these decisions, no political games from governments, etc. >Truly >multi-equal stakeholderism. > > >-- >Cheers, > >McTim >"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >route >indicates how we get there." Jon Postel Avri Doria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 09:29:04 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 09:29:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Avri, On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > While I have been largely silent on the list while waiting for my charges > against another member to be processed, > I fear you may be waiting for Godot. > I need to respond to one point: > > > " > There is no possibility of the ICANN Board reversing these decisions, no > political games from governments, etc. Truly multi-equal stakeholderism. > " > > NCSG its currently engaged in lengthy appeal against a situation where > this its indeed our accusation, that the board did indeed reverse bottom up > decisions. > Correct. The GNSO and other bits of ICANN are subject to siloism, representitivty, GAC interference, Board machinations, etc. I was referring to those ICANN processes that are still immune from GAC/Board/Staff interference. Namely the ASO, but perhaps the ccNSO, but I can't testify to that area. -- 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sat Nov 30 10:27:52 2013 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:27:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <03A7A733-F1F6-42FA-919B-59D713CAF39D@theglobaljournal.net> > Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word. Deirdre: You're so right but why then are this debate is flooded with one word: 'multistakeholderism'? The multistakeholder committee, the multistakeholder conference, the multistakeholder model, the multistakeholder pizza, the multistakeholder Internet. (take away the word from the International Conference over Internet Governance, convened by Brazil, what would it change? Not much I presume. Why after the brazilian official announcement, ICANN has re-phrased the title of the conference in its blog a multistakeholder Internet Governance model Conference?) Who needs this word so badly? I observe that this happens in a context where one single player is constantly dominating the 'game'? It seems like the 'Multistakeholder Salsa' has been put to the service of one. Isn't it more or less so? If at least, 'multistakeholderism' was a true ideology, I think many would rightfully question its values, program, instances, proposal, in a very open manner. They are many definitions, meaning not a common one. It seems odd to stick to one single word, when the current IG debate and the fading WSIS process (if not already moribond), need rebooting and fresh thinking. Some voices are asking for the IGF to be reinvented - sounds a good idea - but only to the condition of a multistakeALLder approach. Is that a proper new start for pourparlers? Constituency seems to be the very first thing to be addressed. So far, it seems like it has not been. People fighting each other to know who is more CS than the other and any outsider can understand their mutual questioning. People are State Department, then ISOC. People are Google, then IANA, still Google. People are Verizon, then ISOC. People are CS, then turn ICANN, with many applauding to that meritocratic recognition. All of that is so nepotist, and just not democratic - have we abandoned Democracy for something else? All of this speaks for the confusion regarding the constituencies. If the IGF would have freed itself from its ITU-ECOSOC-UN-WSIS-father-in-law, and unilaterally proclaimed its independent standing, it could have already call for an international convention to define the Internet Polity requested by many. IGF, a spin-off of the WSIS? But only to the condition that IGF would be able to convene a real constituency, with its different parts clearly defined, each one in its role and limitation. Who could contest the IGF to speak with full legitimacy then. Maybe IGF should have turned itself into an 'Occupy Internet Movement'. I'm pushing a little too far? After all, the users should be the first constituents. Internet allows a lot, even with an NSA big brother over the shoulder. History might help. Think about the US convention to install a legitimate body to govern over the American colonies. It was resisted by many, among the settlers and the British elite profiting from that new world, a lot of resistance, until it became clear to all that another way was possible, thanks to people such as Common Sense Paine. Hasn't thIGF got its own 'common sense' voices? But, indeed they set up a representative system to attend the convention, with clear mandate from their respective constituency, having to go back and forth, before giving a final position. The French have had a few years later their own convention, and it convened 3 multistakeholders (church, nobles, third-state) as strange as it sounds today. It ended with another new constitution. I think the big question for the IGF, or for anyone concerned with the unfair state of IG today, is about the constituencies to the contrat. Rousseau could be back on that. Let's be able to name a cat a cat. Instead of wearing a uniform (everyone becoming an so-called Multistakeholder), let's accept a full diversity of partners, and let's stop talking Multistakeholderistic. IGF is missing the funding to do that Convention? Let's crowdfund it. The Internet has a powerful leverage. Would any Brazilian, German conference be of danger to such an IGF? Surely not. If the constituencies are clearly identified and convened by the new IGF. Thinking that ICANN can be the starting point for that process seems very surprising. IGF should have been the most appropriate venue to launch the Internet Governance platform that History is calling. Or maybe is it time to concede that WSIS, and its IGF infant are both dying. Until a platform convenes the properly defined constituents, it won't be possible to use a common understanding of words. What we have now is more or less becoming a dialogue de sourds. There is no use of any MultiCANNholder, MultiUSholder, Multiwhateverholder. Define the Constituents> Convene a Convention> Sign a Constitution> Use it. Internet can bring Democracy to new levels of practice. If only it starts by setting an innovative governance for itself. If not, IGFist will have failed an historical democratic opportunity. Should we expect anything like this from the ICANN, its High-Level Panel (entre amis and with the cool CS guys) and Fadi canoeing around with smiles and little gifts? JC __________________________ Le 30 nov. 2013 à 14:28, Deirdre Williams a écrit : > Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word. > Deirdre > > > On 30 November 2013 09:14, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > Finding an appropriate term is something that is an ongoing difficulty for the reasons detailed in this thread. And the ICANN community, staff and board are regularly struggling with this. The current consultations for the Strategic Plan illustrate it. > > In this context, Milton rightly highlights the ambiguity when discussing "ICANN's internationalization". There are different complementary dimensions behind this word, and it is important to distinguish them. I see at least the following three aspects: > The Organization's physical presence and outreach: this includes the current opening of hubs in Singapore and Istanbul, the creation of additional engagement offices, the role of the "regional" VPs, the development of multilingualism, etc... Generally speaking this is about ICANN moving closer to the people it serves, rather than having one core site of operations and asking people to just come to its meetings. In a nutshell, this is about ICANN thinking internationally. > The incorporation of the organization in one particular country (US in the State of California) and submission to one national legal regime vs exploring possible alternatives, such as: specific immunities, another country with specific regime for international non-profit organizations (cf. the report mentioned by Nick), or a more international status (INGO as Michael suggested) ... As mentioned by Karl, there are difficult legal and practical questions and this is why this has not necessarily moved much until now. Furthermore, ICANN had many other fish to fry in the last years, including improving its own operational capacity and the management of the new gTLD program. ICANN is performing a global public interest function, is therefore a global organization in that regard, even if the current international system does not easily (if at all) allow to create global structures that are not intergovernmental. > Last but not least, the term "ICANN's internationalization" also includes, as Milton noted, the question of the role of the US administration in the IANA process. This itself actually covers two dimensions: the fact that the IANA contract giving ICANN the responsibility for the clerical verification of the requests for changes in the root zone file is still issued by the US government AND the specific role of the US NTIA in the final transmission of the change to Verisign. This is now less a taboo for discussion since the Montevideo Declaration, which is good, and I am deeply convinced there are ways to address this issue in a fact-based and constructive manner. That being said, the important part is more about the internationalization of NTIA's role in the IANA workflow than the internationalization of ICANN itself. And the solution for that - even if we use the term "internationalization" - is not a sort of Digital Security Council. Innovation is needed here if we collectively want to move to a system that guarantees for ALL actors the integrity of the root zone file, ensuring that no one, voluntarily or involuntarily, can tamper with the root. > Maybe different words could be used for these different dimensions. > > I hope this helps. > > Bests > > Bertrand > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I like these distinctions and I think they are valid. However all three definitions overlook one of the most important aspects of the globalization or transnationalization of ICANN: the removal of the source of authority from a single national government and the linkage of its authority over the DNS root zone file to a global polity. > > > > --MM > > > > From: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal [mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net] > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 3:52 PM > To: Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, > > > > If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: > > > > Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around. > > > > Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. > > Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind. > > > > Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. > > Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds. > > > > > > - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. > > - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. > > - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. > > > > Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. > > > > Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... > > > > All the best, > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor in Chief > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > > @jc_nothias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > > > Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 > schrieb Milton L Mueller : > > > > Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family > > holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word > > "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in > > a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not > > an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena > > > That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their > governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has > certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global > phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of > decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is > happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national > relations. > > On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very > wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased > social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns > that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. > > Maybe yet another term could be used??? > > 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 > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net) > Former Member, ICANN Board of Directors > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Nov 30 11:11:31 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 21:41:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> On Saturday 30 November 2013 06:58 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word. > Deirdre Deirdre/ All Most things in social and political discourse are complex. However, there is always a way to build categories, split issues, and progress in steps , whereby we can certainly talk meaningfully about them and make social and political progress... Such a shared intention is key... I think there are two clear issues about 'internationalisation of ICANN' 1. Its legal status, and the jurisdiction to which it is subject. 2. The actual role of US-NTIA in authorising every change in the root file. It seems that other than the US gov itself, everyone agrees that US-NTIA should be divested of that 'root change authorising' role..... Then the question comes; (a) should the role then be exercised directly and finally by ICANN itself, or (b) another body to undertake this role (and just this role and nothing else) is needed. A lot of people - including i* group - are of the opinion that (a) above is the best option. Some others think that every significant decision pertaining to a crucial global infrastructure should be subject to a second opinion or confirmation, as a normal prudence, by a body different from the executive authority (ICANN Board). One way would be to have some kind of international oversight board (not necessarily inter-gov) undertaking the same role as undertaken by US-NTIA today. Another way is to allow ICANN to make root changes but all such decisions are post facto reviewed and confirmed by such an international oversight board. ( Whether with a pre facto or post facto role, such an oversight board will exercise its role within clearly set our parameters and rules.) A third way is to only have an appellate board which reviews root change decisions only if an appeal is made to it through a due process. Therefore, on point 2 above, we can easily agree to ask US-NTIA to shed its oversight role. What should further be done can be discussed along the above three lines (others may add more options if any) Point 1 above is more contentious. Although, in principles, it is easy to assert that a global resource cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of one country and that it should be subject to international jurisdiction. The issue then is; how to form such an international jurisdiction. Here too, it is easy for us as a civil society group to assert the principle - yes, it is untenable that ICANN continues to be subject to US law and jurisdiction. ICANN needs to be made subject to international law and jurisdiction. Lets do first agree on this principle. If we do, we can then take up the subsequent discussion of how to establish an appropriate jurisdiction and legal framework for ICANN. I am sure we can close onto a few clear options, if not agree on one. A structured discussion on the above lines will help identify areas we all agree on, explore the possibility of convergences on those we do not, and in the latter case, at least come out with a clear set of alternatives. parminder > > > On 30 November 2013 09:14, Bertrand de La Chapelle > > wrote: > > Dear all, > > Finding an appropriate term is something that is an ongoing > difficulty for the reasons detailed in this thread. And the ICANN > community, staff and board are regularly struggling with this. The > current consultations for the Strategic Plan illustrate it. > > In this context, Milton rightly highlights the ambiguity when > discussing "ICANN's internationalization". There are different > complementary dimensions behind this word, and it is important to > distinguish them. I see at least the following three aspects: > > 1. *The Organization's physical presence and outreach*: this > includes the current opening of hubs in Singapore and > Istanbul, the creation of additional engagement offices, the > role of the "regional" VPs, the development of > multilingualism, etc... Generally speaking this is about ICANN > moving closer to the people it serves, rather than having one > core site of operations and asking people to just come to its > meetings. In a nutshell, this is about ICANN thinking > internationally. > 2. *The incorporation of the organization in one particular > country *(US in the State of California) and submission to one > national legal regime vs exploring possible alternatives, such > as: specific immunities, another country with specific regime > for international non-profit organizations (cf. the report > mentioned by Nick), or a more international status (INGO as > Michael suggested) ... As mentioned by Karl, there are > difficult legal and practical questions and this is why this > has not necessarily moved much until now. Furthermore, ICANN > had many other fish to fry in the last years, including > improving its own operational capacity and the management of > the new gTLD program. ICANN is performing a global public > interest function, is therefore a global organization in that > regard, even if the current international system does not > easily (if at all) allow to create global structures that are > not intergovernmental. > 3. Last but not least, the term "ICANN's internationalization" > also includes, as Milton noted, the question of *the role of > the US administration in the IANA process*. This itself > actually covers two dimensions: the fact that the IANA > contract giving ICANN the responsibility for the clerical > verification of the requests for changes in the root zone file > is still issued by the US government AND the specific role of > the US NTIA in the final transmission of the change to > Verisign. This is now less a taboo for discussion since the > Montevideo Declaration, which is good, and I am deeply > convinced there are ways to address this issue in a fact-based > and constructive manner. That being said, the important part > is more about the internationalization of NTIA's role in the > IANA workflow than the internationalization of ICANN itself. > And the solution for that - even if we use the term > "internationalization" - is not a sort of Digital Security > Council. Innovation is needed here if we collectively want to > move to a system that guarantees for ALL actors the integrity > of the root zone file, ensuring that no one, voluntarily or > involuntarily, can tamper with the root. > > Maybe different words could be used for these different dimensions. > > I hope this helps. > > Bests > > Bertrand > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > I like these distinctions and I think they are valid. However > all three definitions overlook one of the most important > aspects of the globalization or transnationalization of ICANN: > the removal of the source of authority from a single national > government and the linkage of its authority over the DNS root > zone file to a global polity. > > --MM > > *From:*Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > [mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > ] > *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 3:52 PM > *To:* Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and > Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the > Future of Internet Governance > > Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, > > If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual > perspective, and in my humble Global Governance > observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: > > *Internationalization*: one wants to have a larger > international basis: more offices, more representatives, more > of a network of local branches that, being put together, > creates an international network. Still each element is mostly > comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, > thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind > of uniformity. /Meaning many little ICANNs all around. / > > *Globalization*: this could happen without a network of > offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized > entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, > still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its > own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one > single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many > voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from > one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. > > /Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind./ > > *Transnationalization*: this tends to establish a community of > people based in various locations, trying to forget about > their local identity, interest or belonging, with the > objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, > trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of > global magnitude. > > /Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds./ > > - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater > control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can > pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. > > - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, > specially if you are not starting from a fully independent > culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or > national basis. > > - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one > puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more > sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a > true global minded system. > > Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth > trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current > state of the IG debate. > > Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the > ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which > has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter > forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' > to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A > pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable > definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. > Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, > deadlocks... > > All the best, > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor in Chief > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > > > @jc_nothias > > > > > Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > > Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 > schrieb Milton L Mueller >: > > > Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday > a big family > > holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word > > "internationalization" with "globalization"? > Increasingly we live in > > a world where nations, and by extension the > "inter-national" is not > > an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena > > > That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states > and their > governments of course continue to have a significant role, > it has > certainly become inadequate to try to understand > transborder, global > phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of > decomposing into what is happening at the national level > plus what is > happening in inter-national trade and other areas of > inter-national > relations. > > On the other hand, many civil society people including > myself are very > wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has > often increased > social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds > of concerns > that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is > intended to address. > > Maybe yet another term could be used??? > > 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 > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic > Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net > ) > Former Member, ICANN Board of Directors > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine > de Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Nov 30 12:48:05 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:48:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <03A7A733-F1F6-42FA-919B-59D713CAF39D@theglobaljournal.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <03A7A733-F1F6-42FA-919B-59D713CAF39D@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: In fact my next question was (now is) Perhaps "multistakeholder" is also too big an idea being forced into too small a space? I really like the idea of a crowd sourced IGF :-) Deirdre On 30 November 2013 11:27, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal < jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word. > > Deirdre: > You're so right but why then are this debate is flooded with one word: > 'multistakeholderism'? > > T*he multistakeholder committee, the multistakeholder conference, the > multistakeholder model, the multistakeholder pizza, the multistakeholder > Internet.* > * (take away the word from the International Conference over Internet > Governance, convened by Brazil, what would it change? Not much I presume. > Why **after the brazilian official announcement,** ICANN has re-phrased > the title of the conference in its blog a **multistakeholder Internet > Governance model Conference?**)* > Who needs this word so badly? I observe that this happens in a context > where one single player is constantly dominating the 'game'? It seems like > the 'Multistakeholder Salsa' has been put to the service of one. Isn't it > more or less so? > If at least, 'multistakeholderism' was a true ideology, I think many > would rightfully question its values, program, instances, proposal, in a > very open manner. They are many definitions, meaning not a common one. It > seems odd to stick to one single word, when the current IG debate and the > fading WSIS process (if not already *moribond*), need rebooting and fresh > thinking. > Some voices are asking for the IGF to be reinvented - sounds a good idea > - but only to the condition of a multistakeALLder approach. Is that a > proper new start for *pourparlers*? > > Constituency seems to be the very first thing to be addressed. So far, it > seems like it has not been. People fighting each other to know who is more > CS than the other and any outsider can understand their mutual questioning. > People are State Department, then ISOC. People are Google, then IANA, still > Google. People are Verizon, then ISOC. People are CS, then turn ICANN, with > many applauding to that meritocratic recognition. All of that is so > nepotist, and just not democratic - have we abandoned Democracy for > something else? All of this speaks for the confusion regarding the > constituencies. > > If the IGF would have freed itself from its > ITU-ECOSOC-UN-WSIS-father-in-law, and unilaterally proclaimed its > independent standing, it could have already call for an international > convention to define the Internet Polity requested by many. IGF, a spin-off > of the WSIS? But only to the condition that IGF would be able to convene a > real constituency, with its different parts clearly defined, each one in > its role and limitation. Who could contest the IGF to speak with full > legitimacy then. Maybe IGF should have turned itself into an 'Occupy > Internet Movement'. I'm pushing a little too far? After all, the users > should be the first constituents. Internet allows a lot, even with an NSA > big brother over the shoulder. > > History might help. Think about the US convention to install a legitimate > body to govern over the American colonies. It was resisted by many, among > the settlers and the British elite profiting from that new world, a lot of > resistance, until it became clear to all that another way was possible, > thanks to people such as Common Sense Paine. Hasn't thIGF got its own > 'common sense' voices? But, indeed they set up a representative system to > attend the convention, with clear mandate from their respective > constituency, having to go back and forth, before giving a final position. > The French have had a few years later their own convention, and it > convened 3 multistakeholders (church, nobles, third-state) as strange as it > sounds today. It ended with another new constitution. I think the big > question for the IGF, or for anyone concerned with the unfair state of IG > today, is about the constituencies to the *contrat. Rousseau could be > back on that*. Let's be able to name a cat a cat. Instead of wearing a > uniform (everyone becoming an so-called Multistakeholder), let's accept a > full diversity of partners, and let's stop talking Multistakeholderistic. > IGF is missing the funding to do that Convention? Let's crowdfund it. The > Internet has a powerful leverage. Would any Brazilian, German conference be > of danger to such an IGF? Surely not. If the constituencies are clearly > identified and convened by the new IGF. > > Thinking that ICANN can be the starting point for that process seems very > surprising. IGF should have been the most appropriate venue to launch the > Internet Governance platform that History is calling. Or maybe is it time > to concede that WSIS, and its IGF infant are both dying. > > Until a platform convenes the properly defined constituents, it won't be > possible to use a common understanding of words. What we have now is more > or less becoming a *dialogue de sourds*. There is no use of any > MultiCANNholder, MultiUSholder, Multiwhateverholder. > > Define the Constituents> Convene a Convention> Sign a Constitution> Use it. > > Internet can bring Democracy to new levels of practice. If only it starts > by setting an innovative governance for itself. If not, IGFist will have > failed an historical democratic opportunity. Should we expect anything like > this from the ICANN, its High-Level Panel (entre amis and with the cool CS > guys) and Fadi canoeing around with smiles and little gifts? > > JC > __________________________ > > > > > Le 30 nov. 2013 à 14:28, Deirdre Williams a écrit : > > Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word. > Deirdre > > > On 30 November 2013 09:14, Bertrand de La Chapelle < > bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Finding an appropriate term is something that is an ongoing difficulty >> for the reasons detailed in this thread. And the ICANN community, staff and >> board are regularly struggling with this. The current consultations for the >> Strategic Plan illustrate it. >> >> In this context, Milton rightly highlights the ambiguity when discussing >> "ICANN's internationalization". There are different complementary >> dimensions behind this word, and it is important to distinguish them. I see >> at least the following three aspects: >> >> 1. *The Organization's physical presence and outreach*: this includes >> the current opening of hubs in Singapore and Istanbul, the creation of >> additional engagement offices, the role of the "regional" VPs, the >> development of multilingualism, etc... Generally speaking this is about >> ICANN moving closer to the people it serves, rather than having one core >> site of operations and asking people to just come to its meetings. In a >> nutshell, this is about ICANN thinking internationally. >> 2. *The incorporation of the organization in one particular country *(US >> in the State of California) and submission to one national legal regime vs >> exploring possible alternatives, such as: specific immunities, another >> country with specific regime for international non-profit organizations >> (cf. the report mentioned by Nick), or a more international status (INGO as >> Michael suggested) ... As mentioned by Karl, there are difficult legal and >> practical questions and this is why this has not necessarily moved much >> until now. Furthermore, ICANN had many other fish to fry in the last years, >> including improving its own operational capacity and the management of the >> new gTLD program. ICANN is performing a global public interest function, is >> therefore a global organization in that regard, even if the current >> international system does not easily (if at all) allow to create global >> structures that are not intergovernmental. >> 3. Last but not least, the term "ICANN's internationalization" also >> includes, as Milton noted, the question of *the role of the US >> administration in the IANA process*. This itself actually covers two >> dimensions: the fact that the IANA contract giving ICANN the responsibility >> for the clerical verification of the requests for changes in the root zone >> file is still issued by the US government AND the specific role of the US >> NTIA in the final transmission of the change to Verisign. This is now less >> a taboo for discussion since the Montevideo Declaration, which is good, and >> I am deeply convinced there are ways to address this issue in a fact-based >> and constructive manner. That being said, the important part is more about >> the internationalization of NTIA's role in the IANA workflow than the >> internationalization of ICANN itself. And the solution for that - even if >> we use the term "internationalization" - is not a sort of Digital Security >> Council. Innovation is needed here if we collectively want to move to a >> system that guarantees for ALL actors the integrity of the root zone file, >> ensuring that no one, voluntarily or involuntarily, can tamper with the >> root. >> >> Maybe different words could be used for these different dimensions. >> >> I hope this helps. >> >> Bests >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> I like these distinctions and I think they are valid. However all >>> three definitions overlook one of the most important aspects of the >>> globalization or transnationalization of ICANN: the removal of the source >>> of authority from a single national government and the linkage of its >>> authority over the DNS root zone file to a global polity. >>> >>> >>> >>> --MM >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal [mailto: >>> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net] >>> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 3:52 PM >>> *To:* Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller >>> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives >>> for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, >>> >>> >>> >>> If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, >>> and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of >>> the reflection: >>> >>> >>> >>> *Internationalization*: one wants to have a larger international basis: >>> more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches >>> that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each >>> element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, >>> thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of >>> uniformity. *Meaning many little ICANNs all around. * >>> >>> >>> >>> *Globalization*: this could happen without a network of offices around >>> the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many >>> different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a >>> governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than >>> one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a >>> single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a >>> global manner of thinking. >>> >>> *Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind.* >>> >>> >>> >>> *Transnationalization*: this tends to establish a community of people >>> based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, >>> interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, >>> regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an >>> understanding of global magnitude. >>> >>> *Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds.* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over >>> the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global >>> minded outlet. Good communication value. >>> >>> - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially >>> if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging >>> when one starts from a private or national basis. >>> >>> - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in >>> the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and >>> ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. >>> >>> >>> >>> Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to >>> explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. >>> >>> >>> >>> Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate >>> objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the >>> corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would >>> convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, >>> politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable >>> definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something >>> that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... >>> >>> >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> __________________________ >>> >>> Jean-Christophe Nothias >>> Editor in Chief >>> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >>> >>> @jc_nothias >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >>> >>> >>> >>> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 >>> schrieb Milton L Mueller : >>> >>> >>> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family >>> >>> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word >>> >>> "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in >>> >>> a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not >>> >>> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena >>> >>> >>> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their >>> governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has >>> certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global >>> phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of >>> decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is >>> happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national >>> relations. >>> >>> On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very >>> wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased >>> social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns >>> that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. >>> >>> Maybe yet another term could be used??? >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic >> Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net) >> Former Member, ICANN Board of Directors >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >> Saint Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > > -- “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 pranesh at cis-india.org Sat Nov 30 13:17:26 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:17:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <529A2BB6.8020906@cis-india.org> Bertrand de La Chapelle [2013-11-30 08:14]: > internationalization of ICANN itself. And the solution for that - even if > we use the term "internationalization" - is not a sort of Digital Security > Council. Innovation is needed here if we collectively want to move to a > system that guarantees for ALL actors the integrity of the root zone file, > ensuring that no one, voluntarily or involuntarily, can tamper with the > root. Isn't this precisely what is attempted by https://www.iana.org/dnssec/icann-dps.txt and http://www.root-dnssec.org/tcr/selection-2010/ at least insofar as "no one, voluntarily or involuntarily, can tamper with the DNSSEC Root Zone Key Signing Key" goes? [snip] This document is the ICANN DNSSEC Practice Statement (DPS) as the Root Zone Key Signing Key Operator. It states the practices and provisions that ICANN, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC), employ in providing Root Zone Key Signing and Key Distribution services. These include, but are not limited to, issuing, managing, changing and distributing DNS keys in accordance with the specific requirements of the DoC. [/snip] Cheers, Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------------- Access to Knowledge Fellow Information Society Project, Yale Law School T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Nov 30 13:59:09 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 05:59:09 +1100 Subject: [governance] Coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <20131130134112.13e9976b@quill> References: <20131130134112.13e9976b@quill> Message-ID: <976A46E47ACE43EE9BAAF8F64F561C42@Toshiba> Yes, that was my understanding as well. December 1 cutoff. And I think to date there have been four candidates? If there does need to be an extension in these unusual circumstances, I believe no more than a week can be justified. We must move on. In the circumstances I hope we can have elections before Christmas, to allow two new co ordinators to take place before Christmas, and give us a fresh start in 2014. The circumstances of a co ordinator resigning are unusual for us, but this excerpt from the charter explains the procedures. " If a coordinator leaves the role due to personal reasons or recall, the role will be refilled as quickly as possible. The role will be refilled for the balance of the term unless the refill occurs during the year in which the role was to be vacated. In this case the coordinator position will be for the balance of the replacement terms plus a two (2) year regular term. For example, if the 'even year' coordinator for 2006, leaves the role during an odd year, 2007, the rest of the term will be filled with a replacement, and a new selection will be made on schedule in 2008. If on the other hand the coordinator leaves the role early in 2008, then the replacement would complete the original term and serve the 2008-2010 term." My suggestion is that everyone gets to vote for two candidates. The person with most votes serves a two year term, the person with second most votes serves a one year term - to get us back into rotation. I think that is a correct reading of the situation given the year in which the resignation was received. I am sure there are plenty of people who will help with the continuity issues arising from two new people taking on roles at the same time. Indeed there is nothing to stop the new co coordinators asking a few people to specifically help in this regard. I admire your stance on this Norbert. A new start is definitely needed and I appreciate that the steps you have taken actually have created this opportunity, (despite the circumstances being less than ideal). Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 11:41 PM To: IGC Subject: [governance] Coordinator elections Dear all In response to my recent posting in which I mentioned a Dec 1 deadline in relation to the coordinator elections, I've been asked off-list whether that had been formally announced. Since it's a general rule of thumb that when one person explicitly asks, probably several others were wondering the same thing, here's a copy pf the posting in question... Greetings, Norbert --snip----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 01:23:30 +1300 Message-ID: From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] Dear Colleagues, Further to the *June 6, 2013* notice for calls for coordinator, we are happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on December 1, 2013. For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was why we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about candidates. This year, we started making early calls to start thinking about nominating someone or standing for the elections for the 2014-2016 term. We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please liaise with them and nominate them on the list. *The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 *to allow for elections. having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I thought I should add some reflections that may help those who are thinking of standing or to encourage people to stand. *Reflections * The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the facilitation of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and encouraging members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the Charter and providing a platform for advocacy. The role and responsibilities will be an opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes antagonistic views. It requires strength, courage and emotional intelligence to manage the responsibilities. For me personally, it has been an incredible opportunity learning about dealing with diverse voices and I can say that I have learnt the discipline of restraint where at times I have had to hold back my view because facilitators have to have some form of neutrality and act in the best interests of the IGC community. Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs to be clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the majority before deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time for Internet Governance. The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally with the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. *Current Nominations Received* 1. Deirdre Williams 2. x 3. x Kind Regards, Sala ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 Nov 30 14:05:13 2013 From: avri at ella.com (avri doria) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:05:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Coordinator elections Message-ID: Process makes sense to me. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Ian Peter Date: 11/30/2013 13:59 (GMT-05:00) To: Norbert Bollow ,IGC Cc: "'Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro'" Subject: Re: [governance] Coordinator elections Yes, that was my understanding as well. December 1 cutoff. And I think to date there have been four candidates? If there does need to be an extension in these unusual circumstances, I believe no more than a week can be justified. We must move on. In the circumstances I hope we can have elections before Christmas, to allow two new co ordinators to take place before Christmas, and give us a fresh start in 2014. The circumstances of a co ordinator resigning are unusual for us, but this excerpt from the charter explains the procedures. " If a coordinator leaves the role due to personal reasons or recall, the role will be refilled as quickly as possible. The role will be refilled for the balance of the term unless the refill occurs during the year in which the role was to be vacated. In this case the coordinator position will be for the balance of the replacement terms plus a two (2) year regular term. For example, if the 'even year' coordinator for 2006, leaves the role during an odd year, 2007, the rest of the term will be filled with a replacement, and a new selection will be made on schedule in 2008. If on the other hand the coordinator leaves the role early in 2008, then the replacement would complete the original term and serve the 2008-2010 term." My suggestion is that everyone gets to vote for two candidates. The person with most votes serves a two year term, the person with second most votes serves a one year term - to get us back into rotation. I think that is a correct reading of the situation given the year in which the resignation was received. I am sure there are plenty of people who will help with the continuity issues arising from two new people taking on roles at the same time. Indeed there is nothing to stop the new co coordinators asking a few people to specifically help in this regard. I admire your stance on this Norbert. A new start is definitely needed and I appreciate that the steps you have taken actually have created this opportunity, (despite the circumstances being less than ideal). Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 11:41 PM To: IGC Subject: [governance] Coordinator elections Dear all In response to my recent posting in which I mentioned a Dec 1 deadline in relation to the coordinator elections, I've been asked off-list whether that had been formally announced. Since it's a general rule of thumb that when one person explicitly asks, probably several others were wondering the same thing, here's a copy pf the posting in question... Greetings, Norbert --snip----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 01:23:30 +1300 Message-ID: From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator [2014-2016] Dear Colleagues, Further to the *June 6, 2013* notice for calls for coordinator, we are happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on December 1, 2013. For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was why we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about candidates. This year, we started making early calls to start thinking about nominating someone or standing for the elections for the 2014-2016 term. We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please liaise with them and nominate them on the list. *The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 *to allow for elections. having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I thought I should add some reflections that may help those who are thinking of standing or to encourage people to stand. *Reflections * The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the facilitation of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and encouraging members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the Charter and providing a platform for advocacy. The role and responsibilities will be an opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes antagonistic views. It requires strength, courage and emotional intelligence to manage the responsibilities. For me personally, it has been an incredible opportunity learning about dealing with diverse voices and I can say that I have learnt the discipline of restraint where at times I have had to hold back my view because facilitators have to have some form of neutrality and act in the best interests of the IGC community. Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs to be clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the majority before deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time for Internet Governance. The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally with the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. *Current Nominations Received*    1. Deirdre Williams    2. x    3. x Kind Regards, Sala ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Nov 30 14:06:06 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 20:06:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <976A46E47ACE43EE9BAAF8F64F561C42@Toshiba> References: <20131130134112.13e9976b@quill> <976A46E47ACE43EE9BAAF8F64F561C42@Toshiba> Message-ID: + 1 to Ian's contribution, Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Yes, that was my understanding as well. December 1 cutoff. And I think to > date there have been four candidates? If there does need to be an extension > in these unusual circumstances, I believe no more than a week can be > justified. We must move on. > > In the circumstances I hope we can have elections before Christmas, to > allow two new co ordinators to take place before Christmas, and give us a > fresh start in 2014. > > > The circumstances of a co ordinator resigning are unusual for us, but this > excerpt from the charter explains the procedures. > > " > If a coordinator leaves the role due to personal reasons or recall, the > role will be refilled as quickly as possible. The role will be refilled for > the balance of the term unless the refill occurs during the year in which > the role was to be vacated. In this case the coordinator position will be > for the balance of the replacement terms plus a two (2) year regular term. > For example, if the 'even year' coordinator for 2006, leaves the role > during an odd year, 2007, the rest of the term will be filled with a > replacement, and a new selection will be made on schedule in 2008. If on > the other hand the coordinator leaves the role early in 2008, then the > replacement would complete the original term and serve the 2008-2010 term." > > My suggestion is that everyone gets to vote for two candidates. The person > with most votes serves a two year term, the person with second most votes > serves a one year term - to get us back into rotation. I think that is a > correct reading of the situation given the year in which the resignation > was received. > > I am sure there are plenty of people who will help with the continuity > issues arising from two new people taking on roles at the same time. Indeed > there is nothing to stop the new co coordinators asking a few people to > specifically help in this regard. > > I admire your stance on this Norbert. A new start is definitely needed and > I appreciate that the steps you have taken actually have created this > opportunity, (despite the circumstances being less than ideal). > > > Ian Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow > Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 11:41 PM > To: IGC > Subject: [governance] Coordinator elections > > > Dear all > > In response to my recent posting in which I mentioned a Dec 1 > deadline in relation to the coordinator elections, I've been asked > off-list whether that had been formally announced. > > Since it's a general rule of thumb that when one person explicitly > asks, probably several others were wondering the same thing, here's > a copy pf the posting in question... > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > --snip----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 01:23:30 +1300 > Message-ID: > > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator > [2014-2016] > > > Dear Colleagues, > > Further to the *June 6, 2013* notice for calls for coordinator, we are > happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on > December 1, 2013. > > For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, > there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of > candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was > why we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about > candidates. This year, we started making early calls to start thinking > about nominating someone or standing for the elections for the > 2014-2016 term. > > We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating > yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please > liaise with them and nominate them on the list. > > *The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 *to allow for elections. > having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I > thought I should add some reflections that may help those who are > thinking of standing or to encourage people to stand. > > *Reflections * > The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the > facilitation of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and > encouraging members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the > Charter and providing a platform for advocacy. The role and > responsibilities will be an opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes > antagonistic views. It requires strength, courage and emotional > intelligence to manage the responsibilities. For me personally, it has > been an incredible opportunity learning about dealing with diverse > voices and I can say that I have learnt the discipline of restraint > where at times I have had to hold back my view because facilitators > have to have some form of neutrality and act in the best interests of > the IGC community. > > Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the > assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs > to be clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the > majority before deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time > for Internet Governance. > > The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC > community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally > with the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. > > *Current Nominations Received* > > 1. Deirdre Williams > 2. x > 3. x > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fatimacambronero at gmail.com Sat Nov 30 14:46:51 2013 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:46:51 -0200 Subject: [governance] Coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: <20131130134112.13e9976b@quill> <976A46E47ACE43EE9BAAF8F64F561C42@Toshiba> Message-ID: + 1 Agree with Ian's comments. Fatima 2013/11/30 Sonigitu Ekpe > + 1 to Ian's contribution, > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 > "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" > > > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Yes, that was my understanding as well. December 1 cutoff. And I think to >> date there have been four candidates? If there does need to be an extension >> in these unusual circumstances, I believe no more than a week can be >> justified. We must move on. >> >> In the circumstances I hope we can have elections before Christmas, to >> allow two new co ordinators to take place before Christmas, and give us a >> fresh start in 2014. >> >> >> The circumstances of a co ordinator resigning are unusual for us, but >> this excerpt from the charter explains the procedures. >> >> " >> If a coordinator leaves the role due to personal reasons or recall, the >> role will be refilled as quickly as possible. The role will be refilled for >> the balance of the term unless the refill occurs during the year in which >> the role was to be vacated. In this case the coordinator position will be >> for the balance of the replacement terms plus a two (2) year regular term. >> For example, if the 'even year' coordinator for 2006, leaves the role >> during an odd year, 2007, the rest of the term will be filled with a >> replacement, and a new selection will be made on schedule in 2008. If on >> the other hand the coordinator leaves the role early in 2008, then the >> replacement would complete the original term and serve the 2008-2010 term." >> >> My suggestion is that everyone gets to vote for two candidates. The >> person with most votes serves a two year term, the person with second most >> votes serves a one year term - to get us back into rotation. I think that >> is a correct reading of the situation given the year in which the >> resignation was received. >> >> I am sure there are plenty of people who will help with the continuity >> issues arising from two new people taking on roles at the same time. Indeed >> there is nothing to stop the new co coordinators asking a few people to >> specifically help in this regard. >> >> I admire your stance on this Norbert. A new start is definitely needed >> and I appreciate that the steps you have taken actually have created this >> opportunity, (despite the circumstances being less than ideal). >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow >> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 11:41 PM >> To: IGC >> Subject: [governance] Coordinator elections >> >> >> Dear all >> >> In response to my recent posting in which I mentioned a Dec 1 >> deadline in relation to the coordinator elections, I've been asked >> off-list whether that had been formally announced. >> >> Since it's a general rule of thumb that when one person explicitly >> asks, probably several others were wondering the same thing, here's >> a copy pf the posting in question... >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> --snip----------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 01:23:30 +1300 >> Message-ID: >> >> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >> Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator >> [2014-2016] >> >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Further to the *June 6, 2013* notice for calls for coordinator, we are >> happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on >> December 1, 2013. >> >> For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, >> there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of >> candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was >> why we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about >> candidates. This year, we started making early calls to start thinking >> about nominating someone or standing for the elections for the >> 2014-2016 term. >> >> We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating >> yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please >> liaise with them and nominate them on the list. >> >> *The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 *to allow for elections. >> having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I >> thought I should add some reflections that may help those who are >> thinking of standing or to encourage people to stand. >> >> *Reflections * >> The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the >> facilitation of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and >> encouraging members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the >> Charter and providing a platform for advocacy. The role and >> responsibilities will be an opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes >> antagonistic views. It requires strength, courage and emotional >> intelligence to manage the responsibilities. For me personally, it has >> been an incredible opportunity learning about dealing with diverse >> voices and I can say that I have learnt the discipline of restraint >> where at times I have had to hold back my view because facilitators >> have to have some form of neutrality and act in the best interests of >> the IGC community. >> >> Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the >> assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs >> to be clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the >> majority before deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time >> for Internet Governance. >> >> The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC >> community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally >> with the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. >> >> *Current Nominations Received* >> >> 1. Deirdre Williams >> 2. x >> 3. x >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:* http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Nov 30 15:29:55 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:29:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <03A7A733-F1F6-42FA-919B-59D713CAF39D@theglobaljournal.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <03A7A733-F1F6-42FA-919B-59D713CAF39D@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > If the IGF would have freed itself from its > ITU-ECOSOC-UN-WSIS-father-in-law, and unilaterally proclaimed its > independent standing, > I'm all for an independent IGF. > it could have already call for an international convention to define the > Internet Polity requested by many. IGF, a spin-off of the WSIS? But only to > the condition that IGF would be able to convene a real constituency, with > its different parts clearly defined, each one in its role and limitation. > Ideally there should be no different parts. Everyone comes together as themselves, not as CS or Biz or gov or whatever artificial group has been foisted on us by WSIS. -- 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 soekpe at gmail.com Sat Nov 30 16:51:27 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 22:51:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear All, Thinking in line with Deirde "honest Broker" and Mawaki on "we will need IGC to stop being _mainly_ a discussion list for the sake of discussion and to be reorganized around tasks, focusing on working on specific outputs or drafting inputs to a policy process, etc". Hope this is food for thoughts. . Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Dear Deirdre, all: > > Thank you for this useful clarification. I definitely think as we discover > the limits of "multistakeholderism" we need to go beyond just criticizing > its inadequacy or adverse effects to start formulating (conceptualizing) a > different model of participation and inclusion (if only as practitioners), > which you have just started doing, it seems to me. If people want to keep > the MS model and just clarify its content/mechanisms, that's okay; if they > instead want to come up with a different label for the new concept, we may > still try. > > Along the same lines and in light of the recent developments on this list, > I was thinking IGC may need to be reformed so as to clarify and highlight > what we have in common and what we believe we can achieve together. And > again that will have to take into account the model of participation and > inclusiveness we seek or think is best in the IG policy space. People have > pointed out the fact that the latest NomCom headed by Ian was able to > cooperate and be effective despite differences, etc. I would submit the > main difference between the NomCom and the IGC as a whole, which enables > effective cooperation, is that the first was organized around a specific > mission. That suggests to me that if we want to make progress and stop with > the polarization and the negativity, we will need IGC to stop being > _mainly_ a discussion list for the sake of discussion and to be reorganized > around tasks, focusing on working on specific outputs or drafting inputs to > a policy process, etc. > > Of course people are free to post whatever they want: post links to > articles or to blog posts, share other information they deem relevant or > even start open open-ended conversations or debates. But maybe we need to > find a way to distinguish those exchange streams from the ones that > directly concern the work of IGC --which again is not just a discussion > list. So that co-cos or any other member would read the former only if they > want and choose to without impacting on the work of IGC. (Regarding blogs, > for instance, I would personally encourage members wanting to comment on > any blog post should do it in the area for comments on that blog page, > assuming there's no harm for the commenter to subscribe to that blog.) > Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud to what we can do to improve the > atmosphere on this list for a better and productive cooperation. We need to > put our heads together and do something about this if we want IGC to remain > relevant. > > Mawaki > > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > Mawaki Chango, PhD > Principal & Founder, DIGILEXIS Consulting > http://www.digilexis.com > m.chango at digilexis.com > twitter.com/digilexis > > twitter.com/dig_mawaki > Mobile: +225 4448 7764 > Skype: digilexis > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Mawaki, >> Thank you for helping me to clarify what I was thinking. >> >> Civil society, as we are using the term, seems to embrace "all of us" and >> therefore is a very unwieldy thing to provide "representation" for. Apart >> from any other considerations the societies within which we live have >> coalesced around a broad range of norms, values and priorities. To my mind >> the differing priorities create the greatest obstacle to reaching >> consensus. To make matters worse "civil society", as well as standing for >> all of us also stands for "each of us"; that is "civil society" is the most >> likely champion of the rights of the individual as well as of those >> individuals taken together as a group, a society. >> >> If I wanted to propose a conspiracy theory I would suggest that one of >> the best ways to discredit the claims for consideration of individual and >> social rights is to create an entity called "civil society" and offer it >> one, or more, seats at the table to speak for individual and social rights. >> Divide and rule is a method which has proved successful, but aggregate to >> divide to rule, that's a really innovative twist. >> >> Which is why I think it's important to emphasise the individual and >> social policy perspectives, rather than the people comprised by "civil >> society". >> >> Consider the nature of "all of us". Many of us have no idea what >> "Internet governance" is all about, and do not understand the rather arcane >> language that is used, particularly the acronyms, and especially if we >> belong to the group that has little or no knowledge of English. All of us >> however are affected by the Internet, even if we don't use it. But most of >> us don't think through a prism of "the Internet"; instead we are concerned >> about the privacy of our personal information, our rights to express >> ourselves and associate with others, what things cost, our control over the >> money that we earn, our security, etc., all of which may in some way be >> connected with the Internet. >> >> The main aspects of issues have been fairly well established. I would >> suggest that there are 5 - technical, governmental, business, social and >> individual. Not all issues will have all 5 aspects, but very few of them >> will have only one. In some cases the relevant different aspects will align >> harmoniously, in others a point of balance will have to be negotiated. Each >> of the 5 will need a team of advocates to argue and support the claims of >> that aspect. Each team will need to have a broad geographic spread - for >> example in the technical aspect what is possible and desirable in Denmark >> may not work in Cameroon. Each team will need to be able to focus on the >> particular aspect for which it is the advocate. Each team will therefore >> "argue from a particular perspective" rather than "belong to a particular >> group". >> >> George asks "where?" I don't know. We need a marketplace, an agora. We >> need a place of trust and safety. Possibly we need a virtual hammam to >> which could be brought naked ideas? >> >> Setting up another new space is always problematic, but trust is a very >> expensive thing to lose. Trust is in fact priceless: you cannot buy it. It >> will grow back by itself given a favourable environment, but the current >> environment is unfavourable to the point of being toxic. What is needed is >> an "honest broker" who can be trusted, by everyone, not to build empires >> and to insist on fair play. And to finance the enterprise? The cost of >> maintaining the space could be provided in equal shares by all of the large >> enterprises for whom the Internet is a source of revenue - as a free gift - >> the money to be scrupulously and publicly audited annually. >> >> This is an attempt to look at the problem from a different direction. >> >> Deirdre >> >> >> >> >> On 26 November 2013 08:27, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Deirdre Williams < >>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by >>>> Michael Gurstein >>>> Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE >>>> REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society >>>> I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread >>>> Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder >>>> environment >>>> begun by George Sadowsky. >>>> >>>> Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues? >>>> In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point was >>>> made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at a recent >>>> workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his children also query >>>> the speed of the Internet at home when they have to do their homework. The >>>> only people excluded from civil society are incarcerated prisoners, and >>>> that also is a statement that can be questioned. If I understand him >>>> correctly George Sadowsky is making the same point. Civil society is us - >>>> all of us. >>>> >>> >>> Sure! We may declare everybody is CS and expect any institutional policy >>> process to open mike to whoever walks in and requests to speak as CS. From >>> my part, I was working on the basis of assumptions I thought were widely >>> recognized as part of the current landscape --and even an inevitable part. >>> If we want to talk about _multistakeholder_ processes, then we cannot but >>> recognize multiple stakeholders, thus boundaries. If we have set up IGC as >>> a membership structure, then we have necessarily identified criteria for >>> membership, thus boundaries. Mine was an attempt to clarify and even extend >>> those inevitable boundaries (based on our operating assumptions); I didn't >>> participate in creating them and am not necessarily advocating for >>> maintaining or reinforcing them. I can content myself with any other viable >>> way to make my voice and voices of any people with legitimate concerns >>> heard and taken into account. >>> I think I have said all what I had to say on this topic. >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >> ..... >> >> >> -- >> “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