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.grantsolution