[governance] two spacial invitations for ICANN MEETING

Wed Nov 6 12:51:46 EST 2013

 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" <joly at punkcast.com> 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 <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 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